Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Military history
WikiProject
Main project page + talk
News & open tasks
Academy
Core work areas
Assessment
Main page
 → A-Class FAQ
 → B-Class FAQ
 → A-Class review requests
 → Assessment requests
 → Current statistics
 → Review alert box
Contests
Main page
 → Contest entries
 → Scoring log archive
 → Scoreboard archive
Coordination
Main page + talk
 → Handbook
 → Bugle newsroom talk
 → ACM eligibility tracking
 → Discussion alert box
Incubator
Main page
 → Current groups and initiatives
Special projects
Majestic Titan talk
Member affairs
Membership
Full list talk
 → Active / Inactive
 → Userboxes
Awards
Main page talk
 →A-Class medals
 →A-Class crosses
 → WikiChevrons w/ Oak Leaves
Resources
Guidelines
Content
Notability
Style
Templates
Infoboxes
 → Command structure doc · talk
 → Firearm cartridge doc · talk
 → Military award doc · talk
 → Military conflict doc · talk
 → Military installation doc · talk
 → Military memorial doc · talk
 → Military person doc · talk
 → Military unit doc · talk
 → National military doc · talk
 → Military operation doc · talk
 → Service record doc · talk
 → Militant organization doc · talk
 → Weapon doc · talk
Navigation boxes doc · talk
 → Campaignboxes doc · talk
Project banner doc · talk
Announcement & task box
 → Discussion alert box
 → Review alert box
Template design style doc · talk
Showcase
Featured articles 1531
Featured lists 149
Featured topics 41
Featured pictures 559
Featured sounds 69
Featured portals 5
A-Class articles 687
A-Class lists 40
Good articles 5,603
Automated lists
Article alerts
Most popular articles
New articles
Nominations for deletion
Task forces
General topics
Fortifications
Intelligence
Maritime warfare
Military aviation
Military culture, traditions, and heraldry
Military biography
Military historiography
Military land vehicles
Military logistics and medicine
Military memorials and cemeteries
Military science, technology, and theory
National militaries
War films
Weaponry
Nations and regions
African military history
Asian military history
Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history
Balkan military history
Baltic states military history
British military history
Canadian military history
Chinese military history
Dutch military history
European military history
French military history
German military history
Indian military history
Italian military history
Japanese military history
Korean military history
Middle Eastern military history
Nordic military history
North American military history
Ottoman military history
Polish military history
Roman and Byzantine military history
Russian, Soviet and CIS military history
South American military history
South Asian military history
Southeast Asian military history
Spanish military history
United States military history
Periods and conflicts
Classical warfare
Medieval warfare
Early Muslim military history
Crusades
Early Modern warfare
Wars of the Three Kingdoms
American Revolutionary War
Napoleonic era
American Civil War
World War I
World War II
Cold War
Post-Cold War
Related projects
Blades
Espionage
Firearms
Pritzker Military Museum & Library
Piracy
Ships
edit · changes
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
Purge page cache watch

Military and combat

[edit]

Lefter Koxhaj

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Lefter Koxhaj (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 has been deleted two times before for lack of notability. There is still a lack of significant and in-depth coverage about the subject. Sources mostly mention him in relation with one event - the 2001 Skopje police raid. Wikipedia is not a memorial, so I think this recreation should stop. StephenMacky1 (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mitrovica02 (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Baghdad (1821)

[edit]
Siege of Baghdad (1821) (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)

Amongst the articles mentioned in the "Slicing history into pieces" thread (the two other articles are already nominated here [1] [2]). There is more info about other stuff than the siege itself, the latter which is not even fully sourced. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Support per nom.
Iranian112 (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ottoman–Iranian War (1821–1823). I'd rather see the article redirected vs. outright deleted. Because it contains a lot of work finding and composing citations and some information not in the main article. It may be useful in the future. Also the redirect itself is worth saving. Also there is useful information in the talk page. -- GreenC 00:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, dear GreenC, we have put a great deal of effort into this page. We have carefully researched the necessary sources, and we have thoroughly discussed the rationale behind this page with you step by step in the "talk" section. Therefore, I strongly oppose the deletion of this article. Anyone who wishes can come and discuss it with me many of the answers people are looking for are already available on the talk page. The Siege of Baghdad article is not a simple or trivial page. It covers a battle that is as crucial and significant as the Battle of Erzurum. Are you seriously considering deleting or turning this historically important article which changed the course of the war into a mere redirect? @HistoryofIran @Iranian112
    Apologies if we disturbed you by tagging you, but this is truly an important matter. Wishing you a good day. BEFOR01 (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Who is "we"? Lectonar (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    He is referring to himself and the people who took part in developing this page. Klass12345 (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    BEFOR01, why are you first opposing this now? You were part of all these discussions [3] [4] [5], all which mentioned that article (and others) getting redirected. I'm not sure what you expected. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally I wouldn't think much about the tone of your message, but why do you evaluate the issues from your own perspective?
    We are talking about the Baghdad siege page, if you want, do not deviate from the subject
    +Also, I didn't say anything about the redirection of the page, I just wanted to change something wrong about the chronological order in the template. I don't see any controversial issues on those pages you mentioned as 1,2,3. As for Diyala and Mandali, I didn't know about the limit of the number of sources, but now that I know and I have knowledge about the accuracy and logic of the sources, I am trying to delete these pages. You can see what I mean here: here BEFOR01 (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am literally talking about the Baghdad siege, thus I am not deviating from anything, nor is there anything wrong with my tone. Sorry, but judging by this and your past comments, I think there is a language barrier here, so let's just end this discussion of ours here. And as for your comment below, please be aware of WP:BLUDGEON. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, you can review all my posts in the discussion; I have no objection to that. However, please do not try to minimize or deny a historical fact using such excuses.
    If I am the one who really derailed the thread, please respond directly to the arguments in my previous posts. If you cannot refute my responses, then the delete or redirect warning placed on the Siege of Baghdad (1821) article should be removed.
    That is not a problem for me, but if you are deliberately biased and trying to minimize the historical significance of the event, then that is something that really needs to be questioned. BEFOR01 (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I agree the article repeats more than necessary about the war, but I don't think that implies the siege is non-notable by any means. Several sources which appear decent (although I don't read Turkish) are cited, and two sections with paragraphs of detail on the siege itself and analysis of it are present. There's too much to merge, and the nominator has not demonstrated that the siege is non-notable -- as such this should have been a merge proposal (to be clear I am also not in support of that). Mrfoogles (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The event is not prominent in WP:RS as far as I've seen. The fact that there is little info about the siege itself is pretty concerning in regards to WP:NOTABLE. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The siege is probably the second or third most important event during the Ottoman–Iranian War (1821–1823). The main article needs expansion it's way too brief and there is good content/sourcing in the Siege article that can be integrated - also good conversations on the talk page. After that, we will better be able to judge what if anything needs splitting off. I want to do this work of expansion but my "day job" (fixing dead links) has been time consuming. -- GreenC 15:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, stating that the event "does not appear prominently in reliable sources" is quite a subjective assessment when it comes to historical topics like this. We have citations from both Turkish and Persian academic sources, and these sources thoroughly examine the siege’s impact on the course of the war. Such regional sources are indeed within the scope of WP:RS, especially when they are directly related to the geography of the event.
Secondly, you say that "there is little information about the siege," but we've already questioned both the accuracy and logic of that claim in the first paragraph. This siege was a decisive event that directly influenced the outcome of the entire war. Trying to condense such a significant and impactful development into just a few paragraphs in the main article could both disrupt the structure there and diminish the historical importance of the siege itself.
Furthermore, this siege is the second most critical event of the war. We've said this before and we’ll say it again: after Erzurum, it was the most consequential engagement.
In conclusion, if the article's content were truly weak, I would have removed it myself long ago. Instead of rushing into deletion or merging, a more encyclopedic approach would be to improve the article through constructive contributions. BEFOR01 (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Sinhagad (1693)

[edit]
Capture of Sinhagad (1693) (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)

None of the three cited sources provide significant coverage to the topic, this was a minor attack that had no lasting impact nor is it given the weight required for a standalone article in the history books, fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Erzurum (1821)

[edit]
Battle of Erzurum (1821) (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 subject already discussed in the ottoman Iranian war article. Insanityclown1 (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect Could easily blank and redirect this instead of AFD.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Narendra Chaudhary (soldier)

[edit]
Narendra Chaudhary (soldier) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet criteria for notability, reliability, or reliable sources. The single English language source is of extremely poor quality. Audrey Woolf (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Rathmann (investigator)

[edit]
Jim Rathmann (investigator) (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 either for his military career or investigative career. His only mentions are in passing in relation to a popular case and his military career obviously doesn't qualify. CUPIDICAE❤️ 20:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I couldn't find any sources that provide specific and independent coverage of Rathmann to justify and article. Cortador (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only thing that's missing from this WP:LINKEDIN-like article is some football-based life advice about championships and the goal line. I've never seen a BLP with so many sources (65 cites among 40 sources, but most of them are just pay-for-play morning newscast hits or incidental mentions) end up so hollow. Also incredibly clear that the main editor of this article just didn't come upon the subject as a cool guy to profile without some financial assistance. Nathannah • 📮 23:13, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    the excessive sourcing-non-sourcing is a pretty telling-tale sign of complete fuckin' nonsense. CUPIDICAE❤️ 23:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beacon (signal fire)

[edit]
Beacon (signal fire) (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 Beacon (signal fire) duplicates information already covered in the Beacon article and exists entirely within its scope. The majority of the page is entirely unsourced, other than two WP:Self-published sources within popular culture. Lea 4545 (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The beacon article is too broad. The early warning system has its own Wikidata object. The idea with it is to port over relevant information from beacon and instead describe it shortly in the main beacon article with a link to the specific subarticle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blockhaj (talk • contribs) 08:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Freeman (Mormon)

[edit]
Joseph Freeman (Mormon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBIO. This person does not appear to be notable except in connection with the 1978 Revelation on Priesthood and the content of this article should therefore be merged into that one. Jbt89 (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23rd Field Artillery Regiment (United States)

[edit]
23rd Field Artillery Regiment (United States) (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 army regiment with only a single mention in a book from 1953. Fails WP:GNG. Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk) 15:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman occupation of southern Iranian lands (1821)

[edit]
Ottoman occupation of southern Iranian lands (1821) (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 non-WP:NOTABLE article part of this "Slicing history into pieces" trend. In that section, I originally proposed to simply redirect this to its main article Ottoman–Iranian War (1821–1823) and move its sourced content over there (another user suggested a merge, same same I guess). However, now taking another look at this article and the war article, I guess a deletion nomination is for the best, since this event is described in mere 2 lines in the "Ottoman invasion of Qajar lands" section, which lacks context. The "Qajar counterattack" section (not event part of this event) is already somewhat described in the war article. And most importantly of all, there is no special event named "Ottoman occupation of southern Iranian lands" in WP:RS, this is a invented name. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? You are angry with me and want to be hostile to me. Let me create my page. Don't worry about me. I have read more about the Qajar-Ottoman war than you, don't worry. Eminİskandarli (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on Lankaran (1812)

[edit]
Attack on Lankaran (1812) (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)

Fail to see how this is WP:NOTABLE. Just another article part of this "Slicing history into pieces" trend. Basically to get an easy win or "point" for the involved faction. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the sources and read a little about the Qajar-Russian war, you will understand that the war was real. But you will not be able to understand this because you plan to destroy the work of others and delete their pages. Eminİskandarli (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This bickering is unacceptable and if it continues, it could lead to a loss of editing privileges. Please discuss the notability of the article and the reliability and quality of its sources and additional sources you have found and brought to this discussion. Wikipedia is not a forum where editors insult each other. Got it? Liz Read! Talk! 02:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well then, can I tell you about the sources? There is a lot of information about this war, but it has not been added to Wikipedia. Historyofiran is just talking nonsense. Eminİskandarli (talk) 07:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion per nom. Insanityclown1 (talk) 09:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion per nom and failure of article creator (now blocked for incivility) to justify notability apart from battleground ranting and gaslighting throughout the discussion. Borgenland (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

9 July 2024 Gaza attacks

[edit]
9 July 2024 Gaza attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's no there there. This seems to be a few attacks that happened on a particular day during the midst of a war. It doesn't seem to be at all notable beyond a few "breaking news" announcements. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING.

Update -- based on the new information, I support the merge proposed below. The timeline is pretty much a list of attacks per days which suits this nicely. Bob drobbs (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, also convinced that a merge, in light of recent information, is the best !vote. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the relevant timeline page. JayCubby 06:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of samurai

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of samurai (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 see the purpose of this list. It is too long to assist browsing, but certainly is missing a lot of persons. It lacks citations. Also, there are multiple definitions of samurai. It is commonly used to refer to warriors, but originally meant servant and refers to retainers. Many of the current entries are lords, and therefore depending on the definition should be excluded. This means the list isn't very helpful and could lead to disputes if anyone cared about it. DrGlef (talk) 12:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deblocking of Dulje

[edit]
Deblocking of Dulje (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 and dubious article written by a blocked editor with a history of copyvios, dubious/poorly sourced articles, and some form of SOCK/MEAT editing. Sources don't seem to describe this as a thing. While some military actions did appear to take place in this area during this time, I haven't been able to find reliable sources that talk about it in Serbian or English, let alone sources that allow this to pass WP:NEVENT. Analysis of current sources is below:

  • [12] - picture of the Martyrs' and Martyrs' Memorial in Duhël confirming two soldiers died in 1998. That's it.
  • [13] used to support a definitive death/casualty toll in the deblockade in the villiage, actually says Ethnic Albanian sources claimed that eight Albanian civilians have been killed and about 40 wounded in two days of fighting across the province. Makes no mention of the deblockadement or ties these deaths to it or the leadup to it.
  • [14] 2008 news article from Glas javnosti titled "Crimes of Albanian terrorists 1995-1998: Mortar and bomb attacks". Verifies the attack near Duhël on the 23rd, and parts of the other list of events, but makes no attempt to connect them to each other like out article does. Makes no mention of the deblockadement.
  • [15] confirms injuries of Milutinov, Milutinov, and Nenad near Duhël on the dates and times in question, presented as a list of injuries during the time and makes no attempt to connect them to any larger event apart from the war itself.
  • [16] and [17] are substantially superficially modified versions of each other with no clear authorship; suspect they were both copied from the same source. First is a blog/forum thing, second is hosted by Tripod (web hosting) which is UGC. Tripod version does not appear seems to fully verify the content: makes no mention of events on "27 August 1998", only discussed a 1999 action by the KLA. Also discussed events in the apring of 1998, but generally, making no reference to this village or blockade or deblockade. Mostly appears to be about tanks. Blog version actually does make reference to a blockadement/military actions in Duhël in July and August. Doesn't mention the KLA by name, doesn't treat the actions in Duhël that summer/fall as connected.
  • [18] Kosovo Diplomatic Observer Mission report from the time; makes no mention of the event and can't be used to prove NEVENT notability even if it did.


Haven't been able to find any other sources discussing this outside of a few mirrors of the Serbian Wikipedia's version of the article (of which this is a translation). If somebody more knowledgeable in this topic area finds a book discussing this in detail, please ping me, but considering the poor state/SYNTH concerns, lack of reliable sources in the article, the fact I can't find any other sources, the contentiousness of the topic area, and the previously documented issues with the writer/translator, AfD it is. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 05:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Obvious hoax article. I suggest taking this article to Wikipedia's list of hoaxes. An editor from Mars (talk) 06:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Kangra

[edit]
Siege of Kangra (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)

Sources fail to provide significant coverage to this topic. This topic is already covered at Kanhaiya Misl, therefore a standalone article is not needed. Koshuri (グ) 03:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is not enough to justify a standalone article, if you discount unrelated parts from the pages, the coverage comes down to half of the pages you are claiming. Whether you added the content or not is irrelevant, in fact you should have never created this article for it suffers from copyright and close paraphrasing issues. A TNT is needed.
Analysis
Source22,25-27 Article
when the political power of the Sikhs was established in the plains of the Panjab. Then the Sikhs turned their attention to these hills. Their cupidity was aroused by the prosperous condition of the petty hill rajas who were unable to make any stand against them. Once they consolidated themselves in the plains, the Sikhs began to turn towards the adjoining hill areas. The relatively prosperous condition of the petty hill rajas attracted Sikh interest, as these rulers lacked the means to mount a significant resistance.
The hill rajas could not resist the rising tide of the invaders, and they found their safety only in submission. Ghamand Chand was the first to yield and several others followed suit. They accepted the overlordship of a powerful neighbouring Sikh chief, promising to pay an annual tribute which did not amount/ to more than five per cent of the revenue. When the Hill rajas could no longer resist the Sikh onslaught, they sought refuge in surrender. Many more acknowledged the Sikh overlordship after Ghamand Chand, who was among the first to do so. In return for security from future invasions, these monarchs agreed to pay an annual tribute. Unless the hill rajas sought Sikh involvement to settle their internal conflicts, this system usually guaranteed that they would remain undisturbed.
The supremacy of Jassa Singh Ramgarhia did not last very long, as in 1775 he was overthrown by his rival Jai Singh Kanhiya, whose overlordship was now accepted by most of the Kangra states. A year later Sansar Chand succeeded to the sovereignty of the hills. Being very ambitious he wished to take possession of the fort of Kangra, the ancient home of his ancestors. However, Jassa Singh Ramgarhia's domination was brief. His opponent Jai Singh Kanhaiya defeated him in 1778 and went on to rule over the majority of the Kangra region. Sansar Chand rose to prominence in the area by 1776. Sansar Chand was an ambitious as ruler who aimed to retake Kangra's fort, which was his family's ancestral home and a historic stronghold.
Sansar Chand made several attempts on the fort, but all were frustrated by Saif Ali Khan. The Raja invited assistance from Jai Singh Kanhiya promising to pay the expenses of the troops at the rate of Rs. 2,000 per day Jai Singh readily agreed, and sent his son Gurbakhsh Singh at the head of a strong contingent in the company of Baghel Singh Karorasinghia. The combined forces laid siege to the fort in 1782 On multiple occasions, Sansar Chand tried to take the Kangra fort, but Saif Ali Khan the Mughal faujdar of Kangra at that time frequently repulsed him. Sansar Chand was eager on accomplishing his goal and turned to Jai Singh Kanhaiya for help, promising to pay for the troops at a rate of Rs. 2,000 per day. After accepting the request, Jai Singh sent his son, Gurbakhsh Singh, and a large troop, which included Baghel Singh Karorasinghia. In 1782, the allied armies besieged the fort together.
In spite of all the rigour of the siege Saif Ali Khan remained steadfast But he was a dying man, and passed away in 1783. His dead body had to be conveyed to the burial ground outside the fort. Saif Ali Khan was determined to defend the fort regardless of how severe the siege got. His health, however, declined, and he died in 1783. Following his death, plans were made to take his remains to be buried at the imambara outside the fort
Jiwan Khan, the son of late Saif Aii Khan, however, was bribed by Jai Singh’s men, and the young faujdar finding his position untenable, decided to hand over his fort to them. Jiwan Khan, the new faujdar and son of the late Saif Ali Khan to surrender the fort for a bribe. Jiwan Khan made the decision to surrender the fort after seeing how fragile his position was. Jiwan Khan made the decision to surrender the fort after seeing how fragile his position was.}}

Koshuri (グ) 08:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pathankot Campaign

[edit]
Pathankot Campaign (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 describes a 1775 clash between Sikh Misls but fails to show its a distinct, notable event beyond skirmishes already covered in articles like Kanhaiya Misl, Bhangi Misl, or Sikh Confederacy. "Pathankot Campaign" isn’t a recognized term in historical scholarship, also WP:RS don’t treat it as a standalone event separate from typical inter-Misl strife. It leans on a narrow set of sources, like Gandhi (1999) and Gupta (1939), lack the mainstream weight or specificity to confirm details. NXcrypto Message 10:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahluwalia–Ramgarhia War

[edit]
Ahluwalia–Ramgarhia 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)

There is no conflict such as the "Ahluwalia–Ramgarhia War", sources do not support it and provide no significant coverage to a conflict under this name. This article is a part of a series of fringe pseudohistorical articles created for ethno-religious POV pushing. Srijanx22 (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete sources exist that proves the content is genuine. But the article title is indeed pseudohistory. The available content could be merged into any of the parent articles. Academic sources lacks covering this as an individual war.Borax || (talk to Borax) 14:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. AlvaKedak (talk) 10:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The coverage in the sources is not enough and none of the sources support this neologism made up by the author "Ahluwalia - Ramgarhia war" , in fact sources do not even support that this was a war, sources at best refer to it as skirmishes and do not provide significant coverage to them. Anyway given the author's history of making copyvio, I doubt this article is free of it. The relevant details (not closely paraphrased) can be covered at the articles of relevant personalities. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maha Singh's Invasions of Jammu

[edit]
Maha Singh's Invasions of Jammu (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 fails WP:GNG & there is no WP:SIGCOV in sources for these minor plundering raids/conflicts. This article also treats these two sackings as one conflict which is pseudohistorical and not backed by sources. Srijanx22 (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination still stands, the sources call it a sacking not an invasion, evidently both are discussed separately and not portrayed as part of the same conflict like you are doing. Even then the coverage is not significant with only a single page worth of mention in the first one and second one provides coverage only to the second sacking and that is already covered at Maha Singh and Haqiqat Singh Kanhaiya's articles, there is no need for this article. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your deducing method is literally taking us to nothing, that's not how it's done. Regardless of article title the article stands out on the base of coverage. (p. 309): "Mahan Singh's first sack of Jammu" and [https://archive.org/details/HistoryOfTheSikhsVol.IvTheSikhCommonwealthOrRiseAndFallOfSikh/page/n349/mode/2up (p. 339): "Second pillage of Jammu by Mahan Singh". When the historian has already affixed the chronology, you are proposing to split the article based on your own spurious assertion. If only a talk page discussion was sufficient for the article title. Heraklios 16:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do not misrepresent me, I never proposed splitting this article. These two were  minor conflicts that you have combined together in this article, this topic is already covered at the Maha Singh. Absolutely no need for a separate article only for POV pushing. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - TNT case, all of the content is closely paraphrased and contains copyright issues. The effort to fix it is not worth it. Note that most of these are consecutive sentences in source and article.
Analysis
Source309-313 Article
In the first expedition the people of Jammu alone had been sacked. The Raja’s palaces and treasury had remained untouched, for the simple reason that the loot acquired from them was enormous. Now was the turn of the Kaja to be fleeced. Only the inhabitants of Jammu had been sacked during the first invasion. Because of the size of the plunder taken from them, the Raja's palaces and treasury had not been damaged
Brij Raj Dev returned with his treasure from Vaishno Devi to Jammu shortly after Mahan Singh’s retirement. The people also settled down in their peaceful avocations in due course of time. Two years had elapsed. Mahan Singh all of a sudden led a second expedition to Jammu at the head of 5,000 men. The government and the people were taken unawares. The remaining riches of the people, the Raja’s entire treasury and armoury were all looted. Soon after Mahan Singh retired, Brij Raj Dev returned to Jammu with his treasure from Vaishno Devi. In due time, the villagers also made their homes in their quiet activities. It had been two years. Suddenly, Mahan Singh was in charge of 5,000 troops on a second invasion of Jammu. Both the people and the administration were caught off guard. The Raja's entire treasury, armoury, and remaining wealth were all plundered.
Huge quantities of gold, silver, ornaments, diamonds, pearls and jewellery ali worth a crore of rupees fell into Mahan Singh’s hands. Immense arms and ammunition were taken possession of. The neighbouring chiefs were frightened. They paid tribute to Mahan Singh, and saved their territories from his depredations. Maha Singh came into possession of enormous amounts of gold, silver, jewelry, gems, pearls, and decorations valued at a crore of rupees. Massive quantities of ammo and weapons were seized. The chiefs who lived nearby were terrified. They paid tribute to Mahan Singh and protected their lands from his ravages
Not a single house or place escaped. Women were stripped of all their ornaments and costly clothes. Floors were dug in search of buried wealth. Plunder lasted for three days and nights. Loaded with enormous booty worth more than a crore Mahan Singh returned to Gujranwala. No house was left intact, for women were stripped of their jewelry and ornaments, floors were dug up in pursuit of hidden riches, and the city's treasures were plundered. The value of the loot amounted to more than one crore rupees
Mahan Singh assured them that he had not come to plunder, but to establish his authority. In the night he surrounded the town and closed all exits Having promised them that he had come to take over and not to plunder. But at night, he commanded his soldiers to encircle the city and seal all the gates.

Koshuri (グ) 04:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Regardless of the name of the article, it has enough coverage.The arguments provided in favour of deletion are poor, the article does not make much use of close paraphrasing, not that it would have been a problem as WP:TNT is used when the article contains significant amounts of copyright violations which according to Earwig is unlikely (see [36] ) AlvaKedak (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A total non-argument this is. The issue is of close paraphrasing, which is something that the earwig cannot catch. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 12:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you might be interested in WP:CCI, for now the article must to be kept. We are not deleting articles for dubious close paraphrasing issues. You can start a Copyright investigation for that. AlvaKedak (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Regards (CP) 21:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep: the two book sources seem ok, not extensive coverage of these events, but I wouldn't expect there to be much. Needs a rewrite and some of the close paraphrasing is worrysome, but that's not a reason to delete this. Oaktree b (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh–Wahhabi War

[edit]
Sikh–Wahhabi 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)

This is a pseudo-historical fringe article, there is no conflict such as the Sikh–Wahhabi War. This article is misrepresenting and confusing the Barelvi movement for Wahhabism and is compiling disparate conflicts between ethnic groups as a singular religious conflict. No scholars support this narrative. Srijanx22 (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Islam, Sikhism, and Pakistan. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Undoubtedly pseudohistorical concept with no significant coverage. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 02:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Totally out of a revenge nomination for filing this SPI, pfft. I'm afraid I can't win against their canvassing but I'd try my best to give a comment which makes good faith editors turn into the side of keep.
    • Oh for God's sake there's a whole chapter which is 9 pages dedicated to this conflict:
      • www.DiscoverSikhism.com. History Of The Sikhs Vol. V The Sikh Lion of Lahore (Maharaja Ranjit Singh, 1799-1839). pp. 159–167.
    • Not enough? Here's 22 pages of coverage:
    • Darn it, here's a whole book based on it (crux: pp. 58-131):

Please see more sources in Sikh–Wahhabi War#References which have coverage ranging from pp 2-5, I'm sorry if I'm being a bit too informal, but I'm frustrated because I can't bypass the "Delete" votes by the SPI gang and it looks like they will succeed in taking down a massive notable article. Heraklios 16:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you prove how these sources are academic? You are simply falsifying them. Had such a war happened, you could find better sources. Nevertheless, you are falsifying your sources. None of your non academic sources prove how this pseudohistorical concept you came up with is true, including the title itself which is ridiculously incorrect, Wahhabism had no presence in India at the time, Barelvi movement was not Wahhabism. That itself proves that this notion of "Sikh-Wahhabi war" is something you cooked up.
Instead of mentioning a failed SPI, and playing a victim by making personal attacks, you need to focus only on this AfD. Srijanx22 (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trivially: Sage Publishing & JSTOR are reliable publishers. We don't need any introduction for Hari Ram Gupta. "You are simply falsifying them. Had such a war happened, you could find better sources. Nevertheless, you are falsifying your sources. None of your non academic sources": Let me be clear, you're proclaiming that given sources are "non-academic"? at this point please respectfully withdraw your frivolous but more like revenge nomination. We can deal with the article title and content issues on the talk page. Heraklios 16:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
JSTOR is not a publisher. That Sage publication you are citing is not about this war. You are still yet to explain how any of those sources give significant coverage to the subject in question. Srijanx22 (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable and not supported by any of the sources mentioned above, regardless of the bad faith assumed by the article creator, and their clubbing of desperate ethnic conflicts under their own neologism. NXcrypto Message 03:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant coverage in the sources but I am not satisfied with the title of the page. The title should be either Sikh Barelvi War or Syed Barelvi holy war against Sikhs. Syed was the only one per source who adopted Wahhabi and it was not a whole community of Wahhabi that was part of holy war. Title change and some improvement needs done. RangersRus (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per TNT, I cross checked some of the sentences in the article and it turns out almost all of it is closely paraphrased. These statements follow the same sequence with minor substitution. This is what I found by only checking one source , I wonder how much of it is copyvio if we were to compare all the sources especially given that the author's contribution history is merely closely paraphrasing sources, suffice to say that keeping this article in current form is not a good idea.
Analysis
Source160-63 Article
The Sayyid's forces consisted of Hindustanis, the Kandharis, Yusafzais and Khataks. The Ghazis were led by Allahbakhsh Khan and the assault was delivered in the early hours of the morning of 21 December, 1826, when the Sikhs lay fast asleep in the intense cold Ahmad Barelvi, at the head of an allied army of Hindustanis, Kandharis, Yusafzais, and Khattaks, planned a surprise attack against the Sikh troops. The attack, led by Allahbakhsh Khan, was launched in the early hours of 21 December 1826, catching the Sikhs off guard as they slept in the cold.
The first onslaught many Sikhs were killed. Budh Singh immediately organised his troops in battle array and fell upon the Ghazis, and repulsed them. They left the field and retired into the hills The first attack led to considerable losses among the Sikhs. However, Budh Singh quickly rallied his men and launched a counterattack which forced the enemy to retreat. The Ghazis retreated from the field and the hills.
Budh Singh had won his spurs, but did not follow up his victory. About 500 Sikhs were killed in all, while the Sayyid lost 36 Hindustanis and 46 Kandharis, including Maulvi Baqar Ali of Patna and their commander Allahbakhsh Khan. While the Sikhs held their ground, they had suffered about 500 casualties. The army of the Syed lost 36 Hindustanis and 46 Kandharis, including Maulvi Baqar Ali of Patna, and their commander, Allahbakhsh Khan.
The Sayyid shifted his headquarters to Sitana at the foot of Mahaban mountains on the western side of the Indus in the heart of Yusafzais. Syed Ahmad Barelvi shifted his base to Sitana, situated at the foot of the Mahaban mountains on the west bank of the Indus River, in the territory of the Yusafzais
Now the Pathans from all around began to flock under the green flag of the Sayyid. In two months their number grew to 50,000. The Barakzai chiefs of Peshawar with an army of 20,000 strong and 8 pieces of cannon joined them. Pashtun tribes from various areas began to gather under the command of Syed Ahmad Barelvi, and in two months, their number reached 100,000 men. The Barakzai chiefs of Peshawar joined the movement, and their army consisted of 20,000 men and 8 guns
a Sikh force under Sardar Budh Singh Sandhanwalia concentrated at the village of Pirpai, 32 km south of Peshawar and 30 km from Akora. The Sikh army, comprising about 10,000 troops and 12 cannon, was reinforced by Raja Gulab Singh, Raja Suchet Singh, and Atariwala Sardars A considerable Sikh force under Budh Singh Sandhanwalia was concentrated at the small village of Pirpai near Saidu situated 32 km south of Peshawar and 30 km from Akora. Budh Singh was joined by Raja Gulab Singh, Raja Suchait Singh and Atariwala sardars. The Sikh army numbered about 10,000 with 12 cannon
The Sikhs lay in their trenches under heavy assaults of the Ghazis for a few days. When their supplies were about to be exhausted, Budh Singh led the attack. The Sikh guns created havoc among the enemy. They took to flight. About 6,000 Mujahidin were killed and wounded. Murray says that the Sikh horsemen gave the fleeing Ghazis a hot pursuit "each Sikh killing fifteen to twenty of the runaways". The Sayyid fled into the Swat hills. Ranjit Singh sent dresses of honour to Budh Singh Sandhanwalia and other commanders. The Sikhs held their ground even though the Ghazis pressed them heavily for a long time. When their supplies began to run low, Budh Singh made a sally. The Sikh artillery inflicted heavy losses on the enemy, forcing them to retreat. It is estimated that nearly 6,000 Mujahideen were killed or wounded in the battle. Historian Murray affirms that the Sikh cavalry followed the fleeing Ghazis, and every horseman is said to have slain fifteen to twenty of the retreating warriors. Syed Ahmad Barelvi himself took shelter in the Swat hills the jihad movement suffered a crushing defeat. In recognition of the Sikh triumph, Maharaja Ranjit Singh sent congratulatory presents to Budh Singh Sandhanwalia and the other leaders
Sayyid Ahmad began to live with Fatah Khan of Panjtar, a fanatic and one of the bitterest enemies of the Sikhs. With his help the Sayyid commenced coercing the neighbouring chiefs to support him fully in the Jihad against the Sikhs. Ahmad Khan of Hoti, for his lukewarm response, was killed in* an action. The Sayyid brought the entire Yusafzai valley under his sway. Mir Babu Khan of Sadhum, a town on the Kalapani river in Peshawar district was subdued. He looked upon Barakzai sardars of Peshawar as his enemies, and incited the Khaibaris to harass them. Syed Ahmad Barelvi took refuge with Fatah Khan of Panjtar, a staunch opponent of Sikh rule. With the support of Fatah Khan Syed Ahmad began consolidating his power in the area by forcing the neighboring tribal chiefs to unconditionally support his jihad against the Sikhs. This campaign included the coercion or subjugation of leaders like Mir Babu Khan of Sadhum and Ahmad Khan of Hoti, the latter being killed for his insufficient commitment. Syed Ahmad's influence was extended over the Yusafzai Valley and tribes such as the Afridis, Mohmands, and Khalils were won over to his cause against the Sikhs.

Koshuri (グ) 14:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom. Close paraphrasing together with the baseless notion of "Sikh-Wahhabi war" shows that there is no need for this article. It is misleading to have one. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Seriously, are we really doing this? It is not productive to bludgeon in an AfD , especially because concerns about close paraphrasing should be raised at WP:CCI, not here.

The article must be Speedy Kept as per the arguments and sources provided above. We should not allow a good amount of notable articles to be removed through the deletion process for these reasons.

If this is being driven by personal conflicts , then I urge you not to turn this encyclopaedia into a battleground or create unnecessary backlogs for the sake of “revenge”. AlvaKedak (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Manupur

[edit]
Battle of Manupur (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 battle; article is cobbled together from passing mentions in various sources and padded out with the "background" and "aftermath" sections. Sources that do exist do not properly verify the content. For example, the date of 10 March 1748 is cited to a book that only says "In a battle fought near Sirhind early in 1748 Qamruddin received a fatal wound but his son Muin ul-Mulk defeated Ahmad Shah Abdali with the support of Safdar Jang." Indian campaign of Ahmad Shah Durrani is a possible redirect target, but I'm not sure it's a good one, and it may be better just to delete this. If redirected, request that the closing admin delete and redirect, as similar articles have been deleted for copyvio reasons and these are frequent sockfarm targets. asilvering (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I agree with your other nominations, I disagree with this one and feel Manupur is more relevant. I've seen more significant sources cover it, page could generally be improved though, no doubt. Here's some sources:
[37] [38] [39] Noorullah (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Just fyi, we usually use the bolded word "keep" to oppose AfDs.) -- asilvering (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, thanks. Noorullah (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:06, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Military Proposed deletions

[edit]

The following articles have been tagged for proposed deletion:


Current PRODs

[edit]
[edit]

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

  • None at present
[edit]

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

[edit]

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

None at present
[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]
  • None at present
[edit]

The following military-related Speedy Deletions are currently open:

None at present

[edit]

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

None at present

[edit]

None at present

[edit]

None at present

[edit]

None at present

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Military&oldid=1284726165"