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

Helge Mathisen

Helge Mathisen (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)

Mostly based on a personal website and a database, lacks reliable indepth sources to establish notability. Fram (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Norway. Fram (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Mount Handrin

Battle of Mount Handrin (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)

Two of the three sources provided lack page numbers, making verification of specific claims impossible per WP:VERIFY. The article contains detailed tactical descriptions and casualty figures that cannot be verified against the cited sources. The writing style also raises concerns - AI detection tools (including GPTZero) indicate a high probability (100%) of AI generation text in the article, with template-like prose and generic military terminology lacking specific historical details expected from reliable sources. The combination of unverifiable content and questionable sourcing fails to meet Wikipedia's standards per WP:RS and WP:V. R3YBOl (🌲) 13:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Iraq. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Operation Herof 2.0

Operation Herof 2.0 (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 is not notable on its own. It fails WP:NOTNEWS. Most of the sources are either Twitter or unreliable Indian media outlets. We already have Insurgency in Balochistan. Wareon (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  KEEP The article is indeed relevant as its a relevant development in the Balocistan uprising. If you read the Isurgency main article, you'd know that the operations by the BLA had significantly lowered, and that this operation is relevant. Its not only relevant for the Balochi uprising, but due to the fact it happened AT THE SAME TIME as the India-Pakistan skirmishes and standoffs of 2025, it adds a deeper layer of importance. Besides, operations and developments like these already have been recorded before in Wiki articles, for example the August 2024 Balochistan attacks. Besides, what you have said about sources, despite true initially has now significantly changed. There are sources from Reuters, Al Jazeera, Arab News, BBC even. And besides, its not only from India's narrative, but also Pakistan's. Regarding sources you do not find amusing, you can challenge them openly as this is a public wiki, but this does not mean that the article is any less important. VitoxxMass (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  Keep This article, this article is very important to expose the real situation of Pakistan, who is doing brutality in Balochistan under pakistani occupation. This article help expose pakistan. 14.139.49.157 (talk) 09:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - Does not need a separate page. Coverage is largely from partisan sources. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed. Also its not protected at all. So its in a constant state of an edit war, which means that what you read 10 minutes ago can be completely different if you reload the page. Also vandalism and bias is a huge problem fot this article in particular. KashanAbbas (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia already has it covered in Insurgency in Balochistan and it can be merged to that article, only if NEEDED. In light of recent India-Pakistan conflict in May 2025, people and Wiki editors are worked up and keep creating these new UNNEEDED ARTICLES. Certainly don't want to add to tensions....Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete It will require a lot to pass GNG. Even Operation Sindoor does not have its own article. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 05:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Princewill Chimezie Richards

Princewill Chimezie Richards (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 notability guidelines, as notability is not inherited from the Biafra Nations League. Searches fail to indicate notability of the individual aside from serving as a spokesman for the group. In lieu of deletion, the redirect could be restored or relevant content can be merged to the aforementioned article. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Africa. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

If anyone sees this, would they be able to move the comment on the talk page (which I'm assuming is a keep vote) here? I'm unable to easily on my phone. Thanks! Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

1985 Malaysian military operation in the Southern Philippines

1985 Malaysian military operation in the Southern Philippines (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 do not verify any of this. Of the four sources cited, one is some unsubstantiated rumors [1], another briefly mentions a response ("a raid on an island") but does not say where, let alone specify "the Philippines" or "Zamboanga island" [2], the third is an opinion column that makes no mention of this purported operation [3], and the fourth, "Moslem community attacked in raid?" from the Spokane Chronicle on Sep 30, 1985, does not appear to exist (I couldn't find it via a Newspapers.com search). I suspect this might be an AI-generated hoax, but even if it isn't, this purported event is not notable. Toadspike [Talk] 12:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Malaysia and Philippines. Toadspike [Talk] 12:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, the 1985 Lahad Datu ambush was real, but the military response (if the Marine Police can even be called "military") seems to have been limited, not significant enough for a standalone article. Toadspike [Talk] 12:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Shellwood (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Likely AI creation. Too much to verify here. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 05:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

List of military attachés and war correspondents in World War I

List of military attachés and war correspondents in World War I (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)

What possible reason is there to join two distinct groups in a "list" that is not a list, when the two groups have their own separate lists? Clarityfiend (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• Puzzling: I see now in the talk page that the decision was made in 2022 to split the list in two. However, is still retaining an article (of sorts) the only way to keep the edit history? Clarityfiend (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• The attribution history must be preserved, one way or another. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Assyrian–Kurdish clashes (1895–1900)

Assyrian–Kurdish clashes (1895–1900) (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 about of a clash that lasted five years after the onset of the Hamidian massacres. I doubt that there is some original research (especially in the years as described in the title and in the lead) ij the article. The sources are offline, so I could not identify whether they contributw to notability or not, but there is one online source, which is unreliable. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 14:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: ToadetteEdit, your nomination appears to have multiple typos in it. Can you please adjust it so that it says what you actually mean? – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  Nom statement adjusted. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 16:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

In fact, my sources are Turkish, or rather Ottoman in origin, because I took them from a Turkish website, and its sources were Ottoman, from Ottoman Archives, If you want, I can send the Website and The Sources in Turkish (I translated the sources to English) Suraya222 (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

"'Keep"' – I don't Really see the Reason of Deletion, If there's anything Wrong with the Page, I could fix it, but I don't Really see what is it, Sources are enough and Reliable, And Page doesn't Really Need Anything Tbh Suraya222 (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

offline sources are valid Vofa (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. Nominator's rationale is contradictory ("I doubt there is some original research" - well, I'd certainly hope so) and appears to boil down to "the sources are offline". Offline sources are entirely valid; difficulty in accessing them does not make them invalid. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Here's the website, You can check it (page 76 slideshow number 12) I translated the sources and the sources were from the Archives of the ottoman Empire, You can check it out https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/180141 Suraya222 (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Clearly the article needs serious proofreading and cleanup, but the sourcing appears solid. Notability might be another thing, but the deletion rationale doesn't really address that aside from questioning the existing sources. Intothatdarkness 14:52, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Democrat Castle

Democrat Castle (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 sources listed mention the castle. Does not meet notability. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Iraq. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

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

List of World War II war correspondents (1942–43) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

Battle of Zakho (1961)

Battle of Zakho (1961) (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 fails WP:GNG. It's filled with puffery, and the only mention of the battle is "Zakho,[1] a key border town near the Turkish frontier, was among the most important early victories for the Kurds." Skitash (talk) 20:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Iraq. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

The first 2 sources that are cited here has not got anything to do with the battle, They talked about an internal rivalry in Zakho between the kurdish tribes fighting each other. on the other hand I checked the third source that was cited here as a "peshmaega (Kurdish) victory" but the source didn't support this claim at all, it has said the opposite, So there is a high POV pushing in this article, I support the Delete of this article for now, I will try my best to expand the article. R3YBOl (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete: After checking all the sources, as I said previously I was thinking of expanding the article but it lacks of information, 6 sources were cited as the capture of a city. only one source has talked about the battle in detail which ended as a suppression of the rebels. I totally support the Deletion of this article per nom. R3YBOl (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

The first 3 sources do talk about it, and are related to it, i advise you to closely look at them again and you will see that it's useless for the page being deleted 185.244.153.200 (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Actually the first 2 sources talk about a kurdish tribes conflict Mustafa barzani, zebari, and harki tribes. The third source claims Iraqi victory R3YBOl (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Note:Another article here "Barzani's jash campaign" literally describe the same event of the same battle. I don't know why does this article exist R3YBOl (talk) 06:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep : This article has sources but they have no page numbers or quotes. Better to keep, reword and clean up the cites.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Chuknagar massacre

Chuknagar massacre (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)

Has very few sources, most of the sources are Bengali sources which are not neutral. Fails WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lt.gen.zephyr (talk • contribs) 06:50, 30 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 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:GNG. We can find enough reliable sources about the subject online. There might be some POV issues but the article doesn't fail WP:NOPV completely. Any POV related issues can be fixed by editing the article. Mehedi Abedin 07:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  None of the international media covered this news. The sources are highly controversial, as most of them are Bangladeshi sources which states pro-bengali narrative over a disputed event. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 08:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  Additionally, there is one BBC source which itself states "controversial" 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 08:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  and also a primary source contradicts the subject itself, such as Academic Sarmila Bose, in her controversial book.[4] dismisses claims that 10,000 were killed as "unhelpful", and argues that the reported number of attackers could have shot no more than several hundred people before running out of ammunition.. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 08:54, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  These arguments are not policy based. Controversial topic doesn't always mean non-notable. As the topic of the article is not originated from the controversy itself, the topic meets notability. Also, not covered by international news doesn't always mean that has to be deleted. Mehedi Abedin 16:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  Not covered by international news refers to thing which has no credibility. If WW2 massacres were reported, I wonder why this wasn't reported by any international media. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 13:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  Why is it essential to have an international media presence? Can you show this from Wikipedia's policies? Its no need to passes GNG by international coverage, it only need some depth coverage from reliable source. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 17:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Lt.gen.zephyr, Undoubtedly Its contain some depth coverage. So What is the abstraction to be natable this article. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 17:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  See my statement above and below. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 17:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep passes WP:GNG. Fails WP:NPOV is not a rational for deletion.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 09:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  A massacre must be covered by both national and international media. In this case only a few pro bengali sources claim this, and even the sources contradict the article. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 10:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment- The updated version has a few more sources, among them most of them are Indian sources applying Pro-Bangladeshi narrative as the alleged massacre was allegedly done by Pakistani forces. However, some facts about this sources —

1) [4] this source about the massacre states A few days after the massacre, on 26 March 1971, Bangladesh declared its independence from Pakistan...
Whereas the infobox states the massacre took place on 20th may. Hence this source contradicts the event.
2) [5] - This source states 30 soldiers couldnt do such a big massacre within a short span of time with the amount of bullets they had. So this source also partially contradicts the article.
3) [6] This source states These figures have been challenged by a critic, given that most witnesses agreed that the number of perpetrators was only between 20 and 40, who had arrived on only up to four vehicles. This would mean, as she objected, that each soldier and officer would have killed 150 to 500 people within about five hours. 65 Was this possible, and could they have even carried so much ammunition
This source also states that this was partially impossible. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 10:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

You are clearly not neutral and have created this AFD with a battlefield mentality."A massacre must be covered by both national and international media." But why? Is this a content dispute or are you saying the article is not notable? These are two different things. Does the size the massacre change it from being a massacre? Does the nom believe there was no massacre or Bangladesh Genocide? Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

None of the notable international media covered this, only a few national media did. The sources are faulty enough, they contradict themselves. Other massacres, such as Katyn massacre, Srebrenica massacre, Nanjing Massacre are well documented by neutral sources. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 19:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, History, Military, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. Worldbruce (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Highly notable massacre. Also disagree with the nom over Bengali sources. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  Highly notable with disputed sources which contradicts the massacre itself? 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 17:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

There is a dispute over the total number of deaths, however the topic is notable. I would suggest you to remove figures and "motive" from the infobox. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Md Mobashir Hossain (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Kurt Knispel

Kurt Knispel (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 isn't any other significant coverage of this man besides the fabrications told by Kurowski in Panzer Aces. Doesn't meet notability standards for biographies. Cutlass^Ciera 02:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I assume you mean notability for a biography, not a BLP. He died 80 years ago. Acroterion (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, that was my error. Cutlass^Ciera 02:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Czech Republic, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. There appears to be sufficient coverage for GNG. Checking the Italian Wikipedia (one of about 30 different wikis with an article on him), there's three paragraphs in this book, I found this from Stern, and German Wikipedia includes this decent Welt story, while mainly being cited to Sergeant Kurt Knispel. The Uncomfortable One (translated), a six-page story in the journal Militär & Geschichte. It also cites an Academia.edu paper "Panzerass" Kurt Knispel: Märchen versus Realität ("Tank Ace" Kurt Knispel: Fairy Tales versus Reality). Whether his tank count is true or not, he seems to meet GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: Just going through assorted AFDs, and this is the second one i've seen today where the article also exists in a slew of other language wikipedias. That's usually a cause to pause before making a nomination. The Germans don't write articles on everything. Fabrications in a life story doesn't mean a subject isn't notable, its often the opposite.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per Beannie. I don't want to !vote based on "I've heard of this guy", but the controversy around Kurowski's hyping of this guy means he himself is very likely to have SIGCOV from the people who debunked it. For example Roman Toppel has written/talked about him. From at least the Märchen versus Realität source this appears to exist. I think it's easy for people aware of the controversy about Kurowski to be over-zealous in correcting the record, but the best way of doing this is through ordinary editing of the articles affected by Kurowski's work. FOARP (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep For reasons articulated by others. If the record is inflated, he still exists in a book people have read and having something on him is of value (especially for those who may be unaware of the controversy surrounding Kurowski's work). Intothatdarkness 14:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

2023 Damascus airstrike

2023 Damascus airstrike (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) 02:07, 30 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) 02:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Iran–Israel conflict during the Syrian civil war per nom. MarioGom (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per NOTNEWS, GNG, LASTING and SUSTAINED. _Dgw|Talk 01:14, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Summer 2011 Jabal al-Zawiya operation

Summer 2011 Jabal al-Zawiya operation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

14 years later, dearth of secondary coverage. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. News coverage of the event is WP:PRIMARY and there is no WP:LASTING or WP:SUSTAINED coverage beyond the initial burst of news. Not every one of the thousands of events during the 14-year civil war is independently notable per WP:GNG. Already covered in its entirety in Early insurgency phase of the Syrian civil war. Longhornsg (talk) 01:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Terrorism, and Syria. Longhornsg (talk) 01:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete No obvious claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Shayrat and Tiyas airbase ambush

Shayrat and Tiyas airbase ambush (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)

14 years later, dearth of secondary coverage. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. News coverage of the event is WP:PRIMARY and there is no WP:LASTING or WP:SUSTAINED coverage beyond the initial burst of news. Not every one of the thousands of events during the 14-year civil war is independently notable per WP:GNG. Can easily be redirected or incorporated as one line in an article covering the larger context, such as Early insurgency phase of the Syrian civil war. Longhornsg (talk) 01:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, and Syria. Longhornsg (talk) 01:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

No. It is still important, as the Syrian civil war article will be too long. Datawikiperson (talk) 10:39, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

The proposal is not to combine with the Syrian civil war article, and content would be 1-2 lines. Any sources supporting the claim "it is still important"? Longhornsg (talk) 01:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - Has failed to meet WP:LASTING. NavjotSR (talk) 06:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per NOTNEWS and LASTING. _Dgw|Talk 01:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Raj Iyer

Raj Iyer (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 businessman. Autobiographical, promotional page akin to a LinkedIn profile, which Wikipedia is not. Undeclared WP:COI. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Cabrils (talk) 01:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Military, Tamil Nadu, Michigan, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@Cabrils: Please provide an explanation for what is "Not suitable" as noted in your message so I can revise the page to comply with the rules. Please do not delete the page without giving me an opportunity to correct the page. Thanks. RajGIyer (talk) 00:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

My comment includes links to specific issues: WP:NOT; WP:COI; WP:ANYBIO. Please peruse these links as they make the issues with the page self-evident.

Further, as you may know, Wikipedia's basic requirement for entry is that the subject is notable. Essentially subjects are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. On my reading, the page does not meet these requirements.

The image used likely breaches copyright, which Wikipedia takes seriously, so should be removed unless clear evidence of its legal use is provided. You uploaded it and claimed it as your "Own work", therefore you claim that you took the photograph and so you clearly know the subject and have a conflict of interest that must be declared (see details below). If you did NOT take the photo, then you have uploaded it on false pretenses. Which of these 2 options is it?

Many of the references would appear to be from sources that are NOT considered reliable for establishing notability.

Additionally, the page tends to read too much like a promotional CV, which Wikipedia is not; and contains prose that is not of a standard appropriate for an encyclopaedia (also see WP:PEACOCK).

You almost certainly have a connection to the subject, including possibly being the subject (see WP:AUTOBIO) or being paid, thus you have a conflict of interest that you must declare on your Talk page (to see instructions on how to do this please click the link).

It would also be helpful in this deletion discussion if you could please identify with specificity, exactly which criteria you believe the page meets (eg "I think the page now meets WP:ANYBIO criteria #3, because XXXXX"). Cabrils (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per Cabrils analysis. CresiaBilli (talk) 06:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

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)

Delete Can easily be incorporated in an article covering the larger context, agree with nominator. BHC (talk) 18:55, 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)
• Delete: 10 years later and this appears to have been largely forgotten, with no coverage past the initial burst of news... Not notable due to the lack of sustained coverage. One drone shot down, four missiles fired, nothing serious appears to have come of this. Oaktree b (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment. 11 years later and this hasn't been forgotten as it was included in the 2020 book "The Battle for Syria: International Rivalry in the New Middle East", by Christopher Phillips, published by the distinguished Yale University Press.[7] Still looking into BHC's merge proposal. gidonb (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  Not forgotten, but a footnote in the broader of the Iran–Israel proxy conflict, especially compared to airstrikes Philips calls out as specifically WP:LASTING, such as the January 2013 Rif Dimashq airstrike. Good find, though. Longhornsg (talk) 01:06, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:33, 4 June 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 1 June 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for continuing the discussion. While there are no English-language articles about Captain Mayuran (Saba), this is primarily because he served in a security role within the LTTE, which was not internationally covered in detail. However, his internal importance to the organization was clearly recognized — for example, the LTTE named a sniper unit after him after his death. His legacy is remembered through Tamil-language commemorative publications, obituaries, and community memorials. I understand the need for reliable sourcing and am doing my best to represent the subject neutrally and verifiably, within the limits of what is available. Thili1977 (talk) 19:45, 1 June 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:29, 30 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)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:39, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, plus the smuggling operation doesn't satisfy WP:CRIME. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Clarityfiend

  Subject received heavy coverage, plus it's pretty rare for coast guardsmen to die nowadays, particularly the CCG; One of the people responsible was also given the death penalty. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  Please see WP:BLUDGEON. - Amigao (talk) 02:29, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  It seems to have several years of coverage from national outlets and resulted in a very significant award being given out, which is a quite good claim to passing WP:NEVENT. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. There seems to be enough lasting coverage to demonstrate notability. The guideline WP:1E might be a reason to move the article to a new title and shift its focus to be about the event instead of the person, but is not a reason to delete it altogether. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:04, 1 June 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep as this seems to be a better method of organisation than putting them all in the main article, as the list is rather long. Sources can be added. Element10101 T ~ C 02:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• Query: What about the arbitrary cutoff of five POWs? Clarityfiend (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:20, 5 June 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)
• Redirect per nom. Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect/possible merge seems like it could be a good option here to preserve content. If redirect, what is the best target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• I would support a primary redirect to 20x82mm, with a secondary preference for MG151. The initial redirect on the 15mm page suggested above goes to the MG151 in any case. Intothatdarkness 11:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to 20×82mm#Usage. As with the nom statement, the notability is lacking; the only source does not provide sufficient WP:SIGCOV let aside that it is not enough though. Merging would not work as there is not much to copy over given that everything written there is also mentioned in 20×82mm. ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:54, 5 June 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:22, 30 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)

  The first source is no good. While it does use this specific phrase, it also uses it in complete contrast, in the context of counterterrorism. In one place it also lumps in "drills", and in another, it omits one of the three parts. This points to a fairly generic usage that doesn't indicate anything that couldn't be addressed at the already existing article mentioned in the nomination. And the second source is paywalled, but it appears to be a 7-page excerpt from a book whose abstract mentions this phrase, but the overall subject of the book seems somewhat offtopic here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:53, 29 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)

  In what way is this "well-established concept" any different from "tactics of terrorism"? Are there any sources that contrast the two? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:53, 29 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:40, 30 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: [8] [9] [10].

I could find more sources without using the "Operation Dragonfly" name. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. 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))

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: Doesn't appear to have had any lasting effect, almost two years later. I don't see sources discussing this, only news coverage4 from the time of the event. I suppose the use of the ATACMS would be notable, but it could be a one liner inserted into an article about the war. Oaktree b (talk) 15:27, 3 June 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD, not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:25, 5 June 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[16], 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment to summarise: of the three sources cited in the article, 1 (Alexeyev) is not accessible: 2 (Burton) is not accessible and 3 (Atgaev) simply says of this battle “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 all it says. My search found nothing else, so while I suppose there was in fact some combat in or near Tashkent in 1607, this clearly isn’t a notable battle and fails WP:EVENT. Mccapra (talk) 23:25, 2 June 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