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

December 2014 Rif Dimashq airstrikes

December 2014 Rif Dimashq airstrikes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No secondary coverage. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. News coverage of the event is WP:PRIMARY and there is no WP:LASTING or WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Not every one of the hundreds of reported airstrikes is independently notable per WP:GNG. Redirect to Iran–Israel conflict during the Syrian civil war, where it's already covered with context. See WP:Articles for deletion/2021 Tapuah Junction shooting for a similar AfD. Longhornsg (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, Israel, and Syria. Longhornsg (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Siege of Jraberd

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

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

This was BLARed about a month ago by AirshipJungleman29 , however it is not mentioned in the target and thus makes a bad redirect. This is a sufficiently recent BLAR that I'm not going to try to send this to RfD but also don't want to restore it just to send it AfD: the pre-BLAR content to evaluate is at Special:Permalink/1281473075. I cannot find any reasonable sources on which to hang either an article or a mention of the subject at the target page, though I don't read Georgian. Rusalkii (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Georgia (country). Rusalkii (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what's going on here Rusalkii; a redirect is at AfD because it's too recent(?) to go to RfD and because you're not willing to revert the BLAR because you can't justify it being an article? Not sure of the logic. Also, you may want to fix all the broken formatting. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Redirects which get sent to RfD after a recent BLAR usually close as "send to AfD instead" and I figured I'd try to skip the middleman this time. I don't think the redirect should exist, because it's misleading about whether there's any content about this topic at the target page, and I don't think the article should exist, because it's not notable, and I find "you need to revert the BLAR to AfD something" fundamentally kind of silly if the person doing the nomination would prefer the redirect to the article, though I will if this seems important to others in the discussion. Formatting fixed (I think), my bad. Rusalkii (talk) 00:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment the sources appear to be in Armenian, not Georgian. --Plantman (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete; from what I can see on Google, mentions of this are very scant. --Plantman (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Mongolia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Bijoy Ullas

Bijoy Ullas (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 see no evidence that this statue passes WP:GNG. There's one source, but I didn't find any other independent WP:SIGCOV. This article was previously BLAR'ed by Onel5969, which was reverted by page creator ইমন. Since I do not see standalone notability here, I seek an AfD consensus for a redirect to Kushtia#Popular places. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Architecture, Military, and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:39, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect - restore redirect, not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onel5969 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Lomana

Battle of Lomana (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 used in this article are largely unreliable and fall short of Wikipedia’s standards for verifiability, particularly when dealing with historical content R3YBOl (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Iraq. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete, and to the point of the V-ability of the sources, I believe the plaintext listed citations are AI-generated hallucinations. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and History. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Pirde

Battle of Pirde (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 lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. Only one potentially reliable source exists, which is not enough to establish notability under WP:GNG. The others fail WP:RS — including partisan and state-aligned outlets like Rudaw, Kurdistan24, and ARK News. R3YBOl (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Iraq. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Siege of Chittor (1654)

Siege of Chittor (1654) (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 significant coverage as outlined in WP:SIGCOV. It inaccurately depicts a minor event—the limited damage to the fort’s battlements—as a siege. This portrayal seems to stem more from the creator's imagination than from historical fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawn3012 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. This article represents a purely synthetic creation that lacks any basis in established definitions of siege. The term "siege" cannot be applied to the destruction of a minor repair, making it inadequate as a standalone topic. Furthermore, it fails to meet the criteria of WP:GNG, lacking the notable coverage necessary for a separate article. Rawn3012 (talk) 04:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - The only significant coverage there is in Somani (1976), Somani's works were authored under the patronage of the house of Mewar, in 1965 he had only a Bachelor of arts in history, there is no information on the rest of his qualifications, if he had any. R.K. Gupta, S.R. Bakshi (2008) is known to be unreliable, since it contains unattributed copyrighted content from other works including those from the WP:RAJ era, and it is published by non scholarly publication as well. [1] There is significant coverage in Rima Hooja (2006)[2], but not enough to warrant a standalone article. I suggest covering the details at the articles of involved belligerent leaders. Shankargb (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom not suitable for a standalone article. Reliable sources like Somani and Hooja's book which have been used in the article doesn't even mention of a siege or battle, they only talk about Saadat marching with his troops and carrying out demolitions. This information can be summarized into a para and be included in Raj Singh I's article here [3]. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk)

Defense of Smolica

Defense of Smolica (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)

Reliable sources don't discuss a "defense of Smolica". This appears to just collect info related to the village during the war and turns into a original research article. The title itself is POV as it implies the militants were defending their rightful territory. Griboski (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Kosovo, and Serbia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete This is 99% OR and fiction. — Sadko (words are wind) 11:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - The amount of WP:OR is significant. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 00:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Aulikara−Hunnic War

Aulikara−Hunnic War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject matter doesn't meet notability according to WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT. It has not received enough coverage in reliable secondary sources; primarily, the content is original and speculative. There is also significant overlap with existing articles on Aulikaras and the Alchon Huns, making the entry a copy. The Red Archive (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Hinduism, India, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh. The Red Archive (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

First Jahangir invasion of Tibet

First Jahangir invasion of Tibet (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 battle is not significantly covered in the scholarship. There are issues with WP:OR since the content is not supported by the sources. One source comes from Gulshan Books while another one is [[ Abdul Hamid Lahori]] from the 17th century, though he hasn't been represented properly. Wareon (talk) 09:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Asia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete No WP:HISTRS to provide coverage to this battle. Shankargb (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I am the original contributor of this article. Captain Mayuran (Saba) was a member of the LTTE during the Sri Lankan civil war and served as a close protection officer for LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran. He participated in several key operations and is remembered within the Tamil community, especially for his role during the Battle of Pooneryn in 1993, where he was killed in action. The article is based on multiple Tamil sources, including contemporary reports and commemorative publications. I have aimed to present the content in a neutral, fact-based manner. I’m open to improvements and willing to add stronger references if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thili1977 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Captain Mayuran (Saba)

Captain Mayuran (Saba) (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 bodyguard that lacks notability per Wikipedia:Notability (people). ÆthelflædofMercia (talk) 02:12, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Sri Lanka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:GNG with Tamil references was notable and the LTTE named a sniper unit after him, known as the Mayuran Sniper Unit after his death.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  Given all the references are in Tamil, could this article be moved to the Tamil Wikipedia? ÆthelflædofMercia (talk) 08:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:NONENG Recommend that sources be in English but as long as non-English sources are reliable and could be verified they are also allowed. -UtoD 10:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Most of the sources doesn't seem to meet WP:RS. ÆthelflædofMercia (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I understand your concern regarding the sources. I’m currently working on finding additional references in English or from more widely accepted Tamil publications. I would appreciate any suggestions on how to improve the article’s compliance with WP:RS. Thili1977 (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Albania's role in the Kosovo War

Albania's role in the Kosovo War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unnecessary split from Kosovo War that isn't properly sourced and possivle WP:POVFORK. I don't see any other articles in the format of "...'s role in the Kosovo War". Should be merged back into the Kosovo War page. Laura240406 (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Albania, and Kosovo. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

1173 Polonnaruwa invasion of Chola

1173 Polonnaruwa invasion of Chola (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)

Doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines; lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. This submission, or separate article, appears to be either a duplicate or unsourced fork of larger themes such as Chola–Polonnaruwa relations in general. There is no indication of historical significance worth having an article on its own. BharatGanguly (talk) 08:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Royalty and nobility, Hinduism, Asia, Sri Lanka, India, and Tamil Nadu. BharatGanguly (talk) 08:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Gupta–Kidarite conflict

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

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

Lacks notability as a standalone topic; minimal sourcing, limited content, and better covered within broader articles like Gupta Empire or Kidarites. Duplicative and does not meet WP:N. BharatGanguly (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Hinduism, Pakistan, Iran, India, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh. BharatGanguly (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Kumaragupta's invasion of Aparanta

Kumaragupta's invasion of Aparanta (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 does not have notability and makes a conjectural interpretation based on insufficient amounts of suspect evidence (coin hoards and vague literary references) without enough importance from primary sources. The event does not have enough detailed coverage from multiple independent reliable sources and would better off being added to the article on Kumaragupta I. BharatGanguly (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh. BharatGanguly (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom also the article has only two sources lacking Nobility and enough coverage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakakarta (talk • contribs) 04:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC) Shakakarta (talk) 04:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: The article is based on only two sources; while historians like Moorkeji states Kumaragupta I didn't make any conquests, and Majumdar states that he did make some conquests but without any success.[4]Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 06:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

  lying on face ? Let me quote what mookerji actually said "Kumaragupta I may be credited not merely with the negative and static work of maintaining his imperial inheritance but also with some positive and bold exploits in adding to the extent of that inheritance by some new conquests and records.But the fact of these conquests achieved by him is indicated by his issue of the significant Aśvamedha type of gold coinage bearing on obv. the legend Jayati divam Kumārah (Kumāra conquers heaven) and on Rev. Śrī Aśvamedhamahendrah. The celebration of horse sacrifice is a sure proof of some considerable conquests achieved by the king"

  Please do some research about the topic before making any decision CelesteQuill (talk) 10:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

  @CelesteQuill If you like, you can also use {{talk quote|"Your quote"}} for quoting references. Chronos.Zx (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

  Moorkeji (1947) still don't mentions Kumaragupta I's invasion of Aparanta.[5] BharatGanguly (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep :Though the article has only 3 sources , it doesn't changes the fact that Gupta coins are found in the region for the very first time ,that too in abundance and concentrated hoards ,thus contradicting any possibility that these coins came into this region via trade.

CelesteQuill (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: Article is supported by scholarly secondary sources such as Goyal (1967), Sharma (1989), Mookerji (1947), and RC Majumdar (1946). I'm not confident about Majumdar but other are better sources. Chronos.Zx (talk) 11:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

  The sources are surely scholarly but a quick check reveals that except Goyal(1967) none of the other sources mentions Kumaragupta I's invasion of Aparanta.

  While RC Majumdar only gives an insignificant Idea of this invasion.[6] pg.173

  A large hoard of Kumāra-gupta's coins, found at Satara in Bombay, has been taken by some as a possible indication of Gupta influence in the South-Western Deccan', though obviously we cannot draw any definite conclusion from this or the find of 13 coins of his at Ellichpur.

  BharatGanguly (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom SolarSyntax (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:TNT, as the current article misrepresents a historical theory as certain fact. None of the cited sources goes beyond suggestions and hypotheticals. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Sajjad Ghani

Sajjad Ghani (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. Unremarkable military officer. TheLongTone (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep - three star general with country's second highest award. Passes WP:ANYBIO 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 14:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep – Lt Gen (retd) Sajjad Ghani held the rank of Lieutenant General , the second-highest active rank in the Pakistan Army. Per WP:MILMOS#Notability, general officers of this rank are presumed notable, particularly when they hold high-level commands.

Ghani served as:

• Commander V Corps (one of Pakistan’s key operational corps), [7]
• Quartermaster General at GHQ, [8]
• Commander of an infantry division during operations in Swat,
• Chairman of WAPDA, a major civilian post after retirement.[9]
• Vice Chief of General Staff at GHQ [10]

Behappyyar (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Military, and Pakistan. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep No question about his notability in light of his long service and high rank achieved in the Pakistan Armed Forces which was acknowledged by the Government of Pakistan by awarding him the second highest award in Pakistan - Hilal-i-Imtiaz (Crescent of Excellence) award. Besides this article already is supported by 5 references from major newspapers of Pakistan and 2 major TV news channels of Pakistan....Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep subject looks notable and has enough news coverage to meet WP:ANYBIO.Mysecretgarden (talk) 05:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Yao Yuanjun

Yao Yuanjun (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)

Typical case of WP:1E; otherwise non-notable. Schwede66 00:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and China. Schwede66 00:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  Keep: Event was highly covered and also pretty notable thanks to the Police dog. Subject was notable both in 2011(when he died) and 2021 (when the video of his police dog came out). Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:1E. - Amigao (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Police. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep until we have an article about the event. Or just add "Death of" to the title. WP:BIO1E does not suggest deletion, it suggests renaming or merging. We could add "death of" to the title.

What 1E says is this: 'When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. ... Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have separate articles on the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and it is all that the person is associated with in the source coverage.'

Nowhere here suggests deletion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I would also support this, however the subject is also notable in the aspect of the story about his police dog Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Isn't that also kind of about the event though? I oppose deletion in any case. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion, but the subject gained significant coverage in two separate events which are interlinked:

1. In 2011 when he was killed in action(now, this itself would not guarantee notability, but it shows he has been covered for multiple events)
2. In 2021 when the CCTV-7 video went viral of his police dog waiting for him.

Either way, I would support keeping the article. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep but also support changing the title to include "Death of ...." as this person appears to be primarily notable for the manner of his death. Also the behaviour of his police dog appears notable because of his death and contributes to persistent coverage of the death. As already observed, WP:BIO1E is more about what to write the article about and the article should be about the event, not the person. The article cites a dozen sources, although all are in Chinese. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 09:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Wang Xiaolong (coast guard)

Wang Xiaolong (coast guard) (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)

Typical case of WP:1E; otherwise non-notable. To be awarded bravery medals etc posthumously by the state doesn't change that. Schwede66 00:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Police, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep: No other publicly available case of Chinese coast guardsmen(To be exact, the post-2013 chinese coast guard, not the pre-2013 border defense coast guard with the same english name that currently lacks an article) dying in the line of duty. Also had significant coverage. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:1E. - Amigao (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  Even though the subject is no longer alive, please see Wikipedia:What BLP1E is not. The AFD fails both criteria 2 and 3. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I see this in a situation similar to the Yang Jia article(except the roles are reversed):

Both are notable mainly due to one event, and both of the articles mainly focus on the people themselves because most of the media coverage focused on the person.

I am open to renaming it to "Death of Wang Xiaolong" instead of deletion, though most of the coverage on him focuses on his entire career and the subject himself Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - clearly WP:1E. WP:NOTBLP1E supports deletion as (1) subject only notable for a single event, (2) was low profile outside this event, and (3) the event was not significant and Wang's role was neither substantial nor well documented. I'd normally say keep due to receiving a significant honor, but it doesn't look like it was awarded for personal achievements. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  Note:

  This is the first publicly avaliable case since 2013 of a coast guardsman getting killed in action. Additionally, this was highly documented in Chinese media, particularly southern china. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  Firstly, being the first coast guard to die is not a notability criterion. Secondly, the coverage is not significant as it is not independent; it's all Chinese media praising someone who received a state award as part of a propaganda effort. That said, merging this information into China Coast Guard#Line of duty deaths is a reasonable AtD. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep just rename. WP:1 says the rule is to cover the event, and so not to have another article. We do not have another article on the event. Just put "death of" in front of the title. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I would also agree, but as stated above, this is sort of a similar situation to how we have the article named Yang Jia but not "2008 Zhabei attacks", since a lot of media attention was also about the subject himself. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

List of mass escapes from German POW camps

List of mass escapes from German POW camps (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)

We already have List of prison escapes, List of prisoner-of-war escapes, and German POW camps in WWII, so possibly merge? But no sources, making things confusing and hard to verify (home run?) and has been edited maybe ~50 times in the 15 years since its creation. GoldRomean (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing different from what we already have. Koshuri ^(グ) 10:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• Merge to List of prisoner-of-war escapes any entries that can be sourced and don't already exist there or in the linked sublist List of attempts to escape Oflag IV-C. The criterion of 5+ prisoners is arbitrary anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Haj Omran (1966)

Battle of Haj Omran (1966) (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)

Battle may or may not exist, none of the three sources are verifiable. One goes to a dead link, another to a newspaper article that does not exist per the newspaper's archive, the third is a print book that is not available online and has no preview on Google Books. There was a battle on a different date during the Iran-Iraq War, but nothing noted by Google or Google books for 1966. I was able to find a CIA document that might be what the dead link was supposed to point to, it mentions Haj Omran but is about a visit in 1974 and only mentions that there was fighting in 1966, it gives no details. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I made a quick check to the article and checked one of the links, specified under the name of the "CIA" and it was a dead link. I support the Delete of this article R3YBOl (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. All three sources are inaccessible. Skitash (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  As the creator i agree it should be deleted or put into a draft DataNomad (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

15×96mm

15×96mm (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)

Lack of notability. I changed this to a redirect to 20×82mm#Usage but was reverted. Seeking consensus. TheLongTone (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose, the redirect is incorrect as it doesnt cover this cartridge. This cartridge was in use throughout WW2 but has too much data to be squeezed into the article MG 151 cannon. There is stuff to write about its history given enough time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blockhaj (talk • contribs)

• What time? What is enough time according to you? Geschichte (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Does it matter? The article is not hurting Wikipedia in its current state, it is just a list of cartridges and their data. This is a matter of deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. Blockhaj (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:HARMLESS - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm just trying to understand what you meant, Blockhaj. For instance regarding time, we never write about stuff that we think might catch on in the future (WP:CRYSTALBALL), but in this case, enough time has passed that sources would have been written by this point. Geschichte (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect The whole article seems to be copied and pasted from the 316 page manual and there is no secondary sources to prove its actually notable. Its seems to be a development prototype, so wasn't even in anger. So why is on here in the direct. Redirecting with a small para of 2 lines in the destination article would be ideal. scope_creep^Talk 18:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

: Note that it wasn't just a development prototype - it did see service, in the MG-151/15 (which was mainly used in early Bf-109Fs- Williams and Gustin's Flying Guns: World War II notes that the 15 mm gun "may have been more widely used than is generally though".Nigel Ish (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

The 15 mm variant was also more common in the anti air role due to the higher velocity. The "SdKfz 251/21 Drilling" SPAA and its mount in fixed use featured 15 mm MG 151 guns, and it appeared late in the war. Blockhaj (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I have also heard about the use in some anti tank rifle but i cannot find anything on it atm so that is a future research project. Blockhaj (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Firearms, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect per scope-creep; insifficient WP:SIGCOV to warrant a standalone article per WP:NOPAGE. —Fortuna, imperatrix 19:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment A large amount of sourced material was deleted from the article......here's the version with it in there: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=15%C3%9796mm&oldid=1291517701. Suggest adding footnotes instead of just saying in talk and edit summaries that it's from the noted source. North8000 (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I see material was removed, but I don't see any citations (at all)... I guess that warranted its removal. —Fortuna, imperatrix 19:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Rapid Fire has projectile weight, muzzle velocity and muzzle energy for HE, AP and APCR ammunition.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect It does appear the MG 151/15 was used as an antiaircraft weapon (according to the Handbook of German Military Forces) as well as some aircraft. Maybe redirect to MG 151/15? Intothatdarkness 19:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• Merge any sourcable content and Redirect to 20×82mm, the cartidge that was developed from this one. Directly related, both cartidges can be covered there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  While i prefer this compromize over complete deletion and bloating the MG 151 article, they are completely different cartridges. Sure, the base of the casing is the same, but thats about it. The 20 mm projectiles were taken from the 20x80 Oerlikon cartridge used in the MG FF. Blockhaj (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  From 20x82mm - a necked-up 20 mm variant of the 15×96mm cartridge. Projectiles were different, yes. That's...kind of understood as its 20mm instead of 15mm. But the cartridge was a direct development. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  Sure but it is shortened as well. We have separate articles for 7.62×51mm NATO and .308 Winchester, and those can essentially not be told apart by eye. Blockhaj (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  This isn't a good comparison. Both those rounds are in much wider (and contemporary) use, and the differences between them are much less significant than those between the 15x96 and 20x82. Intothatdarkness 13:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect per those above, to provide the context of how this relates to the broader concept of the redirect target. BD2412 T 19:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect - little more than a dicdef.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment OK, let's say that the deleted material was restored and footnotes added (which is what I recommend for clarity here) to reinforce that the material is wp:ver compliant. And let's say that for an article like this the norm is a slightly lenient / not unusually rigorous interpretation of GNG. We still have a "stats-only" article with just "it existed" type scope, and we are not able to readily evaluate whether the source is even somewhat GNG, and the material being limited to "stats-only" also doesn't indicate broader GNG type coverage in the source. And so far Blockhaj has been more focused on the dispute over the deleted material rather than addressing or arguing the GNG question, which is THE question. Both folks involved in the dispute are blocked from article space for 24 hours, so I don't know if @Blockhaj: can respond here. If sources are available and more content could be developed I think it would be preferable to cover it in an article named for it rather than put inside an article with a different name. Short term (like some progress within 2 days) this would need Blockhaj or any advocate for keeping to convince us that sourcing for such is available, probably by describing or deriving more GNG type content from the current source and/or finding more sources. If that is not done, even under a lenient GNG standard (which I recommend) I see no wiki-valid reason (regarding wp:notability) for keeping this as a separate article and IMO the merge to the article on the successor round would be the best move. If that happens, and then more sources are identified in the future, it could be recreated at that time. North8000 (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  There is more to add with time, if given, such as its service in the air and why it was eventually superseeded by the 20x82, and also its continued use on the ground (we are mainly talking the addition of projectile damage against different targets here). Development history is also in the pipeline, such as why Mauser went with a 15 mm projectile instead of a 20 mm or 13 mm projectile, etc. Blockhaj (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  IMO the minimum for article space for this is to include some sources that have such coverage. Until then draft space is a good place to develop it to that point. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  I will never understand deletionism but then il get a draft going when i have time. Blockhaj (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect per nom and Scope creep. Miniapolis 22:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect but... feels like the proper redirect target is 15 mm caliber not the cartridge it eventually got revised into, to reflect that it did still exist for a time in those dimensions.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• Background info: For those uninvolved, this article was created as a stub for further improvement in the future. The entire table was ported from the MG 151 article, as it and its brother (20×82mm) bloated that article. When there was a suggestion to give 20x82 its own article and port that table there, it was obvious and essentially required to do the same for the 15 mm cartridge, however, due to limited time, it had to be a stub.--Blockhaj (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Expulsion of Iraqis in Kirkuk (2016)

Expulsion of Iraqis in Kirkuk (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)

The article lacks sources and fails WP:GNG; the topic is not notable enough to warrant its own article. Also, the title is misleading as it implies that the perpetrators were not also Iraqi, which is factually incorrect. Skitash (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

This article in fact does have reliable sources such as Human rights watch, amnesty international but i will add more cause of this. And what do you mean the perpatrators were also iraqi what is your evidence? It makes no sense to why iraqis would expell there own people DataNomad (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Iraq. Shellwood (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

And even if the article needs a few more sources i still dont see how this is reasonable to nominate it for deletion DataNomad (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

It's concerning that you're reintroducing material from a previously deleted article (Deportation of Iraqis), especially when the deletion was likely due to policy issues. Repeating the same content under a new title can be seen as evading consensus. Wikipedia isn't the place for pushing personal or political narratives. R3YBOl (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom.  Zemen  (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: Support per nom. R3YBOl (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: GNG is met, as best I can tell. There is SIGCOV from reliable sources, including news coverage of UN concerns published by Reuters, a variety of other news sources, and commentary produced by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. While the title is bad—this should be more generally entitled something like Kirkuk expulsions (2016)—that alone is insufficient to support a deletion. I don't see a basis to believe that this article should be deleted for pushing personal or political narratives, either, as no evidence that it is doing so has been raised. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  Keep: this article uses multiple reliable sources and keeps a neutral point and doesnt seem to have any problems at all. 185.244.152.248 (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Terrorist tactics, techniques, and procedures

Terrorist tactics, techniques, and procedures (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 procedural nomination on behalf of 35.139.154.158 (talk) who requested at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#AFD request - Terrorist tactics, techniques, and procedures that this article be nominated for deletion. The supplied rationale is:

WP:CFORK of Tactics of terrorism. Collection of this as a distinct topic seems to be due to a single author, C. Flaherty, which not so coincidentally is rather similar to the username of this article's creator and primary contributor.

I am not offering an opinion at this time beyond noting the creator was user:CFlaherty, who has not edited since 2021. Thryduulf (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: This reminds me of a similar phenomenon for the Airport city and Aerotropolis and John D. Kasarda articles (see comments on the Talk pages of those articles). See also WP:NEOLOGISM. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Closing admin, if you delete this article, please remember to delete Tactics, techniques, and procedures and Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures, both of which redirect here. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to Tactics of terrorism. I don't think this article supports that this is an "essential concept" in counterterrorism but it does establish that this is a sometimes used synonym/subtopic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep In perusing the sources a few do use this term but they seem to be published by the law enforcement agency where the author works, or are ebooks by think tanks that don't have Wikipedia articles. Googling though, the term is used fairly heavilly in law enforcement circles and better soruces pop right out. "Terrorist tactics, techniques, and procedures" seems to be a specific term used in reliable sources in this field. Addressing the nominator's rationale, the authorship of the Wikipedia article in and of itself is not a reason for deletion. Self-promotion is a red flag for notability issues, but doesn't prove them by itself. I'd be okay with a merge/redirect to Tactics of terrorism if the sourcing for this longer term isn't deemed sufficient. --Here2rewrite (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. TTPs are a well-established concept and the writeup is very decent. Judging by the title one might be concerned there would be overlap with the above mentioned article, yet judging by the content this isn't the case. gidonb (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. gidonb (talk) 11:41, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Ali Mahmoud (military officer)

Ali Mahmoud (military officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:BIO1E, this figure has only received coverage due to one event which he didn't have a significant role in, and likely wouldn't have been deemed notable enough to warrant a separate article (which is reflected in the article's rather small size and detail). Farcazo (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Syria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Operation Dragonfly

Operation Dragonfly (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 has been sitting since its creation on 25 October 2023, having not been expanded at all since then. It is about a unique, out of many, Ukrainian strike against Russian forces. The only reason why it could be notable would be for it being the first instance of ATACMS usage by Ukraine in the war, according to the article.

The first results when looking up "Operation Dragonfly" on Google aren't even about the invasion of Ukraine. In five pages of results in Google, I could only find the following sources about this strike: [11] [12] [13].

I could find more sources without using the "Operation Dragonfly" name. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. The most recent source is the latter, from 23 October, six days after the strike happened. I do not believe the strike has long-lasting coverage in sources. Simply by reading the article, the strike surely was not nothing, but it doesn't seem worth a Wikipedia article. Super Ψ Dro 20:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Super Ψ Dro 20:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence that this was a significant event. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect It's true that the article is relatively short and the page might not have merit to exist on its own, but that doesn't mean the content is not worthy to exist at all. It would be better if the information are merged onto a larger page that discusses airstrikes in the war, because this page is certainly not the only one and there are many more similar to this one in Category:Attacks on military installations in Ukraine or Category:Ukrainian airstrikes during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I would also prefer this page become a redirect after the merge as it is still the first result after a google search. TeddyRoosevelt1912 (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus, @Shwabb1, @NickK, @Aleksandr Grigoryev For discussion TeddyRoosevelt1912 (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. Hard to say:

• On one hand, this is likely the first ever use of ATACAMS by Ukraine, with significant (from military point of view) result. As such this is a notable enough military operation and it has enough sources.
• On the other hand, it is very likely that no further information about this operation will be released until the war ends (for obvious reasons). As a result, this article will likely stay in current state for a while.

I would read this that fundamentally this is a notable military operation, but practically we will not be able to improve this article further for unknown period of time — NickK (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I believe that's the case as well. Overall I don't mind the idea of merging this into a larger article that lists major airstrikes including this one, as this article is quite small on its own and, as you've said, we're not getting much more info on it any time soon. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 01:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Also, User:TeddyRoosevelt1912, you need to identify a Merge/Redirect target article. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC))

Battle of Khankala (1735)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Battle of Khankala (1735) (2nd nomination)

Battle of Khankala (1735) (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)

Poorly sourced. The only source used is some book Хожаев, Д. (1998). Чеченец (in Russian). Khozhaev seems to be a Chechen field commander, brigadier general and doesn't seem to be a reliable source, since no degree in history. And I couldn't find the book on the Internet, must be WP:RSSELF. Devlet Geray (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Devlet Geray (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• It's first nomination in fact Devlet Geray (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't think "Poorly sourced" is in the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. More relevant is "articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" and "articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". Has WP:BEFORE been done? I also am dubious that you have to have a degree in history or history books you write will be considered unreliable. It seems that plenty of authors have written histories without a formal degree in that subject (one even got a Nobel prize for theirs). But even in that case, our own article on Dalkhan Khozhaev states "In 1983 he graduated from the faculty of History of the Chechen-Ingush State University" and that he was a researcher at the Chechen-Ingush Republican Regional Museum, the author of works on the history of the national liberation movement of Chechnya in the 19th century and Head of the Archives Department. It seems strange you've copied "Chechen field commander, brigadier general" from the start of our article but chosen to edit that from the full description "Chechen historian, field commander, brigadier general and author with numerous works on the centuries-old confrontation between Chechnya and Russia". Given his publication history, he was an academic and writer before his military service, and continued the former during the latter. The article on the Russian wikipedia has quite a bit more on him and has a number of his books listed. The source used in the article is his 1998 «Чеченцы в Русско-Кавказской войне» (Chechens in the Russo-Caucasian War), published in Grozny by Seda Publishers (isbn and catalogue listing here). That you only suspect he might not be reliable, you assume that the source must be self published, these weren't really strong arguments for deletion without having done a proper WP:BEFORE. And given that these things have been disproven, there's nothing left in the nomination. Spokoyni (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - I'll also further add that Khozhaev's book is not "the only source used", there's another in the article, and a WP:BEFORE would have shown there were originally four sources in the article, two of which the original author later removed on the incorrect rationale that they did not add any additional content to what the other sources stated. Spokoyni (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  I clearly wrote that he does not have a degree in history, he is not a specialist in the history of Chechnya (no PhD thesis). How can he be used as a source for a topic like this? Makes absolutely no sence. Moreover, the figures and data presented in the article are initially implausible. In addition, the links are given for show, since it is impossible to verify them. Plus, zero cross-wiki and no information on this "battle" on the Internet, makes the article absoulte original research Devlet Geray (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Since none of that makes any sense, suggest speedy keep under "the nominator failed to give intelligible grounds for content deletion". He has a degree in history, he is a speciality on the history of Chechnya, and if you are suggesting only history books written by those with a phd in history are reliable, you need to go and change the entire nature of what makes a WP:RS. If you mean sources rather than links, they are published accounts and are verfiable (that you personally can't or won't verify them is not an acceptable reason). The absence of articles on other wikis is not a criteria for deletion here, nor is lack of google hits. You tried to get this speedied as a hoax, that was declined. Then you prodded it "because it never happened", and that was declined, and now you're attacking one of the two (out of originally four) sources in the article as a reason for deletion because the book's author doesn't have a phd. I can see your desire to get this deleted for some reason, I'm just not seeing any actual rationale for it. Why do you think this is a hoax, or an invented instance? Spokoyni (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

According to WP:BURDEN, the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Devlet Geray (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

‌‌‌‌‌Meanwhile, I found a pdf version of the book «Чеченцы в Русско-Кавказской войне» (Chechens in the Russo-Caucasian War), published in Grozny by Seda Publishers and there is no mention of such a "battle". Devlet Geray (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete I don’t see anything reliable that tells us this alleged battle ever took place. Mccapra (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Tashkent (1607)

Battle of Tashkent (1607) (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 am unable to find any sources in Latin or Cyrillic script about a battle of Tashkent in 1607. Mccapra (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Uzbekistan. Mccapra (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Kazakhstan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment possibly not a complete hoax? See[19] Jahaza (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
• What about the sources that are already present in the article? Do they exist or are they hallucinated references? (Worldcat doesn't recognise the two ISBNs).Nigel Ish (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

They may exist but I couldn’t find them. Mccapra (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

the first book, Казахское ханство очерки внешнеполитической истории is available here[20] Jahaza (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes that source says “In violation of the treaty with the Kazakh khans, they tried to return Tashkent, which had been in the hands of the Kazakhs since the end of the 16th century, under their rule. Already in the fall of 1603, according to the "Bahr al-Asrar" by Mahmud ibn Wali, Baki-Muhammed Khan attempted to capture the city, but was defeated by the troops of the Kazakh ruler of Tashkent Keldi-Mu-hammed Khan.” That’s all it says about the 1603 battle. About the 1607 battle it says “In 1607, a vassal of Vali-Muhammad Khan named Muhammadmed-Baki-biy Kalmak managed to capture Tashkent. However, he was not allowed to rule the city for a long time, he was driven out of the city by the troops of Yesim Khan.” That’s it. So we know there was fighting in Tashkent but there is nothing that indicates this was a notable battle. Mccapra (talk) 08:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like significant coverage.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Tashkent (1603)

Battle of Tashkent (1603) (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 am unable to find any sources in Latin or Cyrillic about a battle of Tashkent in 1603. It may have happened but it does not seem to have been notable. Mccapra (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Uzbekistan. Mccapra (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Kazakhstan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment this one has an English language source in the article, although the battle, an attempt to conquer Tashkent, reportedly occurred in Ikriyar. But this leaves me a little puzzled about the wording of the nomination. Jahaza (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

it means that when I did a search, the English language source did not come up so I can’t verify that it is indeed a source for the material claimed. Mccapra (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

What did you search? I was able to read it on Google Books[21], it's available from the publisher's web site, and WorldCat lists more than 300 libraries as holding it. Jahaza (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks unfortunately the relevant pages don’t show in my Google books view so I can’t verify it. Mccapra (talk) 03:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - I believe this comes up on the odd occasion, where refs (and even their articles) are challenged because someone wasn't able to see/read the source to "verify" it, whether it's a web article behind a paywall, or a web page with some other form of restricted access, or physical books and other media, that "can't be found at local library or for sale online", etc., etc. I don't recall that itself being a reason to remove a ref, and delete an article, (I could be wrong). I don't believe it should be a reason either, whether it's having faith in the fellow editor that added it, or just the fact that there are numerous articles on WP, with even more refs that can't be easily and readily accessed, yet there hasn't been (to my knowledeg) any widespread efforts to initiate any massive deletion campaigns because of this. (jmho) Perhaps there's a guideline that covers this, but none have been cited here as of yet. - \\'cԼF 10:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

unfortunately in recent times some editors have taken to creating many articles about battles which are completely fictitious. These articles are decorated with pseudo-references to offline books in other languages. Other editors like to create battle articles based on a couple of passing mentions. If I look for sources and can’t find anything that supports what the article says then AfD is the place for it. Mccapra (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I apologize in advance if there are any mistakes in my words — I am writing through a translator. All the articles I have written are based on real books, but the problem is that some of them are not available in open access. So how do I have them? — I bought them. And as for the fact that they are hard to find online — the answer is simple: the history of Kazakhstan develops more slowly than that of other countries.

I write articles, and I know that the way I cited the sources is poorly done — I will try to fix that as soon as I have the time. Онеми (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The discussion is helpful but we need some opinions about a preferred outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Chief of the General Staff (Bangladesh)

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. The claimed speeches of the article do not have any reference, the given references do not say anything on behalf of the claimed speeches. Moreover, the information given in the infobox are unreferenced. 37.111.192.195 (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. We have generally kept articles on senior positions like this one. Can clearly be expanded. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep The problems raised can be fixed by editing, they do not require deletion. I've purged the unsourced material and added a dozen citations that actually support content. The result is not a great article, but it is an acceptable stand alone list, and can be further improved. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per improvements by Worldbruce.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Sheikh Maqsoud Liberation Forces

Sheikh Maqsoud Liberation Forces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  I didn't want to insult him, he just has to differentiate between a city and an armed group. Farcazo (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. I responded to the WP:GOCE copy edit request without realising it was up for deletion; I have assessed it as Stub, added a category and some minor fixes to the prose. I don't see any good reason to delete it, and I would tend to agree with Farcazo's point that the article for the Sheikh Maqsood locality should be separate from one about its armed militia. This is exacerbated by the fact that the locality article is almost entirely about the civil war, and barely mentions anything about its population, geography, amenities, landmarks, etc. that one would expect of a locality article. Perhaps instead of deleting this article, it could absorb more material from the locality article. — Jon (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  Exactly, he should stay because Sheikh Maqsoud is not the same as the militias that are there (that was what I tried to explain to Azuredivay but The Bushranger accused me of supposedly insulting him) and change the city's page, as you say, it has nothing to do with the city (neither its tourist sites nor its climate) and only with the Syrian civil war, I plan to merge the page with Ashrafieh Liberation Forces. Farcazo (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Merge to Sheikh Maqsoud -- in my opinion the militia is better discussed in the context of the history of the neighborhood with respect to the civil war in general, which is well discussed in the Sheikh Maqsoud article. It places it in context. Plus, Sheikh Maqsoud probably won't have too much trouble fitting the militia stuff and additional stuff about the locality itself -- it's not as of yet that long. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Bruneian–Igan War

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete a newspaper column in a short-lived publication isn’t solid enough sourcing for an article about an alleged war. Mccapra (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Thurii

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment: The editor who created this stub seems to have been inactive on Wikipedia since 2013, but nothing on his/her talk page suggests that it was created as a hoax (I was looking for warnings of various sorts). Given that the part about Thurii is only a single sentence, while the rest concerns Rome's conflict with Tarentum, I wonder if perhaps the editor was confused about the sequence of events—perhaps including the dates. My first thought was to check the history of the cities in the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, and see if it mentioned something similar to a battle at this time. Under "Tarentum", at p. 1097, if you scroll down the first column there's a description of Rome and Tarentum coming into conflict over Thurii, though this is supposed to have occurred in 302 BC, while the Tarentines didn't call in Pyrrhus until 281, when the Romans declared war on Tarentum.

This sounds like what the article creator had in mind, but unless the description is in error—which is possible, though it's hard to see "302" as a typo for "282" under "Tarentum"—the editor might have been confused by a less precise description such as the corresponding passage under "Thurii", top of the first column on p. 1193. I believe both are citing Appian's Samnite Wars, though additional sources are cited in "Tarentum" that might also shed light on this. I agree that the existing citations for this article are not very helpful, but thankfully knowing what sources describe the conflicts may help sort out whether there's enough here to salvage (at the very least, it can probably be merged under Thurii, Tarentum, and Pyrrhus, which would technically not be a deletion).

I expect Broughton can also be cited. I did not resort to PW, because wading through pages of densely-annotated German that I have to translate by retyping passages that I think are relevant on Google can be quite time-consuming! Not sure where else I would look besides the Greek and Roman authors cited in the DGRG, but perhaps someone else has some ideas on that. In any case, I think we can conclude that the article is not a hoax, but it might not be focused on its purported subject—Thurii—and might be better off mentioned in other articles than as a stand-alone one. P Aculeius (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have an analysis of above additions?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Military Proposed deletions

The following articles have been tagged for proposed deletion:

Current PRODs

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

• Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Article alerts#PROD

Military-related Images and media for Deletion

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

• None at present

Military-related Miscellany for deletion

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

Military-related Templates for Deletion

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

None at present

Military-related Categories for Discussion

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

Military-related Redirects for Deletion

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

Military-related Possibly Unfree Files

• None at present

Military-related Speedy Deletion

The following military-related Speedy Deletions are currently open:

None at present

Military-related Deletion Review

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

None at present

Military-related Requests for Undeletion

None at present

Military-related material at other deletion processes

None at present

Military related deletions on Commons

None at present