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

Battles for Gornje Kolibe

Battles for Gornje Kolibe (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 skirmish was a very small part of Operation Corridor 92, for which we already have a Good Article which doesn't even mention this event due to its very minor nature. The village of Gornje Kolibe is mentioned once in the second volume of the comprehensive CIA history of the 90s wars in the Balkans, "Balkan Battlegrounds", but only briefly in the context of Operation Corridor 92, and none of the detail of this fighting is even mentioned. Non-notable firefight, appears to have been created effectively as a memorial page to those who fought there. Events from 30 years ago in this war have been examined in considerable detail in academic standard publications, so I have deleted the various local/town/regional news portals, many of which are dubious and/or biased and have no real editorial process (and therefore not reliable), and what is left (cited) is pretty much nothing. One of numerous highly marginally notable articles recently created by a series of now blocked socks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I should say that the other (none news portal) sources I removed were writings of former VRS officers, including at least two whom were directly involved in Operation Corridor 92, so hardly independent of the subject. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. @Peacemaker67 would a possible WP:ATD be a selective merge to the the village of Gornje Kolibe? We have practically no content on the village and this would seem to be a pertinent event to the history of that village? Obviously any unverified content shouldn't be moved over.4meter4 (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gornje Kolibe per 4meter4. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Alexandermcnabb The town doesn't currently mention the event. We can only redirect to articles where the topic is addressed; hence the need to make this a "selective merge". Best.4meter4 (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

very limited material to selectively merge, but yes. I would also add a sentence to the Operation Corridor 92 article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Sino-Kannauj War

Sino-Kannauj 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)

A mere raid that has been vaguely stretched into a War article. RSes do not refer to it as "Sino-Kannauj War", full of WP:HOAX. The article clearly fails to establish WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. HistoryofAryavart (talk) 12:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep:@HistoryofAryavart Why there cant be a article? And better check sources and it has a coverage in sources a mere raid doesnt mean it cant have a article and what hoax? whicj info is wrong this Afd seems to based on your POV theres quit ample content for a article title can be changed. Also the theres literally a newsarticle over this in references this suggests that its quit notable.

Edasf«Talk» 12:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC) Edasf«Talk» 12:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Another thing about notability you completely ignored that its even listed at China-India relations article dont think a non notable thing would be listed here. Edasf«Talk» 13:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works. News articles and blogs are not RSes please go through WP:MILNG and WP:RS. I have checked all of the cited sources and non of it explicitly describes "Sino-Kannauj War". The issue of HOAX and GNG still remains unless the article is backed by reliable source that can corroborate to the topic and not some attack or raid. HistoryofAryavart (talk) 13:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@HistoryofAryavart Newsa article isnt only source there and there are also books who are definitely RS by Reliable authors and I have moved page Edasf«Talk» 13:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing to be found about "Sino-Kannauj War" in the sources, quote the sources explicitly mentioning this event. And please do not move the article while the Afd is going on. HistoryofAryavart (talk) 13:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Heres one Prabhod Chandra Bagchi (2011) "The very same year 647 the Wang Xuance was sent to another imperial mission to Magadha.On his arrival he found that Harsha had died and his minister Arunasva King of Tirabhukti had usurped the throne.The Chinese mission wasnt well recieved its escorts murdered and treasures plundered,Wang Xuance manage to save himself and fled to Nepal which was allied to China through Tibet.There he gathered the milltary support from mercenary Nepali and Tibetan troops and marched on Magadha" Its not full quote theres more but I dont have time you can check the source only.@HistoryofAryavart Edasf«Talk» 13:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Rename There is sufficient coverage for the historical event however the invasion took place purely in the Tirhut/Mithila region of Northern Bihar and Arunasava/Arjuna is described as being the governor or ruler of Tirhut first and foremost hence I believe the article should be renamed to reflect this e.g. the Chinese Invasion of Tirhut.Ixudi (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Ixudi I am OK for it Edasf«Talk» 14:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  Well the historians don't even consider the Chinese accounts as reliable or based on historical events but a hoax. For eg see what Majumdar has to say on this event:

  • p. 125

    In any case, it is impossible to draw any reliable conclusion from this picture of an invincible hero painted by himself.

  • p. 124

    But the Chinese account of the embassy of Wang-hiuen-tse which, as noted above, reached India immediately after the death of Harsha, has preserved some curious details of the history of this period. Accustomed as we are to the exaggeration and self-adulation of the Chinese writers, this account beats all records and reads more like a romance or a string of fables than sober history.

  The article is based on a fictional account and the hero (Wang-hiuen-tse) is painted by himself. The issue of WP:HOAX still remains and there's no reason for this article to be kept in article mainspace. HistoryofAryavart (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  @HistoryofAryavart We can still as a article since you gave several more content if it has coverage then we can keep it after some redraw and your source doesn't completely denies its existence. Edasf«Talk» 14:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  No, the article is purely based on a fabricated account and I have quoted the source to show that it's full of hoaxes, hence Majumdar concludes:

  • p. 126

    On the whole, the story of Wang-hiuen-tse has little historical value, except as a general indication of the anarchy and confusion prevailing in North Biliar and the neighbouring region after the death of Harsha. What happened to the kingdoms of Thaneswar or Kanauj we cannot say, but there is no ground to suppose that Harsha’s death was followed by a political upheaval in the whole of North India.

  HistoryofAryavart (talk) 14:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  @HistoryofAryavart First of all there are other sources as well which do consider it historical and Majumdar is not complete RS since he's no longer a introductory textbooks and his nationalist nature.You need multiple source and Majumdar's interpretations can definitely added in Article but this isn't concrete to delete article. Edasf«Talk» 15:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  This is not a case WP:HOAX beacuse the article is based on actual stories. Rather the actual article should be edited to reflect that the events detailed in the stories may not necessarily be historically accurate. Ixudi (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  I have shown how this Chinese account is not taken seriously. And the event doesn't get enough coverage, much less 5-6 lines of passing mentions which doesn't warrant a standalone article, that said it could have been merged into a parent article. HistoryofAryavart (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  What 5-6 line passages? There are 5-6 pages of it in sources and we usually have separate articles for wars and on what grounds you consider it incapable your POV? Edasf«Talk» 15:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  And Ixudi already told that it has sufficient coverage even a 5-6 line passage is if it has coverage. Edasf«Talk» 15:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  The quote that you excerpted from the Bagchi (2011) has no more than 6 lines of coverage. HistoryofAryavart (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thats not full quote and coverage matters. Edasf«Talk» 08:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  And I'm exactly talking about the "full quote" in the source. Garudam ^Talk! 13:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Well I have reviewed the sources itself. The topics outrightly fails SIGCOV and the issue of HOAX remains, this topic should have been rather included in parent pages, say Pushyabhuti dynasty but I don't think it clears the certain criterias to have a standalone article. Garudam ^Talk! 13:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Garudam The HOAX is already cleared by Ixudi stop repeating reasonings and again Wars tend to have separate article it helps clear confusion and correct all your signatures above since you changed name and coverage matter. Edasf«Talk» 15:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military and India.
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

List of Ukrainian flag officers losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War

List of Ukrainian flag officers losses during the Russo-Ukrainian 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)

Per WP:NLIST, in order for a standalone list to be notable the list must itself be a topic covered in reliable sources: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; and other guidelines on appropriate stand-alone lists." In contrast to the list of Russian generals killed, there is not discussion of Ukrainian 'flag officer' deaths as a set. Since there are no reliable sources that discuss ukrainian 'flag officer lossses' as a set, this list article does not meet the notablity guidelines. This is in contrast to Russian generals killed during the invasion of Ukraine--they are discussed as a set in reliable sources. To take another example, reliable sources discuss 'non water floods' as a set and therefore this group or set satisfies the notability requirements for a list article: List of non-water floods. There is no reliable source in the article under discussion for deletion here that discusses Ukrainian 'flag losses' as a set. List notability can be tricky to understand, but the key is that the set must be discussed in reliable sources as a set. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. There is no problem with the list. The article name does not mention killed, it clearly says losses (not nesesary killed). The profile of those losses are top-tier Ukrainian Flag officers or Generals/Admirals, for example Hayduk was the Admiral of the Ukrainian Navy, Kutsyn was the Chief of the General Staff of the Ukrainian Army and Koval was the Ministry of Defense. It's unusual hence the list.Mr.User200 (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep I think flag officers are significant enough for their own list. There has been some discussion of losses eg [1] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: List is predicated on a notable topic with entries supported by reliable sources, even if there are no sources covering the topic matter as a whole "set". --Katangais (talk) 01:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep:, the list is notable as it covers the longer Russo-Ukrainian War from 2014 and not just the russian invasion from 2022 when many Russian officers where killed in short order wich gained more international attention. But this does not mean we should forget the pre-invasion losses Shadow4dark (talk) 03:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Losses among flag officers are notable enough to warrant their own article/list. Plus, the article is comprehensive to include all losses since 2014. EkoGraf (talk) 08:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Melee

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Melee
• Articles for deletion/Melee (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Melee (game)
• Articles for deletion/Melee (game terminology)
• Articles for deletion/Melee weapon

Melee (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 is essentially a dictionary definition followed by an etymology of the word. This kind of content can be added to Wiktionary but Wikipedia itself is not a dictionary. I suggest deletion and moving the DAB page to primary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Military. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep. This page clearly extends beyond a WP:DICDEF. The terms use in a variety of contexts such as gaming extends its coverage beyond mere etymology. Passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 00:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

If it passes WP:GNG, then please expound on the WP:THREE best sources of significant coverage so that other people in the nomination can see for themselves. I should note that the specific definition of the medieval "melee" tournament is not what this article is actually about. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep this isn't a dictionary definition article. Instead, it's a stub article on a tactical warfare concept. SportingFlyer T·C 02:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  If it is, we have an article on that concept already, close-quarters battle. If you are suggesting that a melee is different than close-quarters battle, you will need to explain how, because the article even admits they are the same. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  Of course it is. Simply search "melee combat" and an additional modifier to weed out the computer game books. SportingFlyer T·C 02:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  I am, unfortunately, drawing a blank on outside the tabletop and video game realm. Rather than saying "wow it's so obvious", it would assist if you explained fully how melee combat is not CQB, or at least is different enough for a separate article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  I've never heard about close quarters combat until right now, but I could have told you that melee combat was close range medieval combat. SportingFlyer T·C 02:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  I have found several sources on the form of medieval tournament, but we've got Tournament (medieval)#Melee for that. Furthermore, Melee (tournament) is the former page for that. This page still seems superfluous. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment this was previously AfD'd back in 2015 for similar rationales to the nominator. I'd recommend giving it a read to avoid any restated arguments, especially since I'm seeing a few here from both sides already. I'm personally leaning to a deletion, and then having the DAB page made primary, but I'd like to see what extent of coverage the !Keep votes (@4meter4 and @SportingFlyer) are able to turn up before I make a final assessment. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Invasion of France (1795) order of battle

Invasion of France (1795) order of battle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Contested merge, with both parties agreeing this unreferenced page isn't helpful as a standalone article. Given the uncontested argument that it serves no encyclopedic purpose, and wouldn't improve Invasion of France (1795), deletion seems the best course. I also note that it was (re)created by a now-banned account. Klbrain (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and France. Klbrain (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

List of wars involving the Mughal Empire

List of wars involving the Mughal Empire (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)

Perhaps I dont understand whats need of this redirect it seems as POV Fork and should simply merged with List of Battles involving Mughal Empire and that article should see some improvement.I certainly see that by this we are simply giving someone a peak level of confusion. Edasf«Talk» 13:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Edasf«Talk» 13:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Lists, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep. I couldn't find a List of Battles involving Mughal Empire article. There's a List of battles between Mughals and Sikhs, but it doesn't cover many of the wars stated in the article. IdanST (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@IdanST List of battles involving the Mughal Empire Edasf«Talk» 15:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, you're right.

However, I see the article was changed to contain only wars redirects, with a 'See also' redirect to List of battles involving the Mughal Empire. As such, both articles fulfill different roles now, and because of that I remain on 'Keep'. IdanST (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@IdanST It was done recently so, my problem is over. Edasf«Talk» 03:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep: The two article deal with quite different subjects, and the content forking in the article was of recent nature, now previous version restored. Sutyarashi (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sutyarashi I don't know what one gets from such a disambiguation page but ol fine. Edasf«Talk» 17:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep as recent POV fork mess was taken care of and there's no reason to merge it with List of battles involving the Mughal Empire as long as the articles follow the distinct topic list. HistoryofAryavart (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Lists of wars and lists of battles serve different functions. Rather than deleting this, or trying to repeatedly merge or redirect it without discussion, this page should be protected. Users who engage in disruptive editing should be warned. NLeeuw (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep This is great if you just want to see the results of the wars, without having to scroll through a long list of all the battles in each one. I reverted the deletion of most of the content. [2] Dream Focus 09:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Rab Nawaz Choudhary

Rab Nawaz Choudhary (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)

Only notable for involvement in a single incident. The article on this, 1959 Canberra shootdown, does not mention him (if it did I would have reirected. Is it even worth a merge? TheLongTone (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Aviation, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep : He is mentioned in The Print and Dawn coverage.--Gul Butt (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Those sources which are viewable such as The Print and Dawn coverage are all trivial passing mentions and do not count towards notability per WP:SIGCOV. I would have supported a merge if I had been able to verify the content, but I am not having any luck finding anything on this man in WP:RS. With the article linking to amazon as a vendor it doesn't make me confident that the source are accurately represented.4meter4 (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep A very much notable individual in Pakistan's military history. WP:BIO1E states that the if event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. This is a speedy keep. Muneebll (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per Muneebll.  samee  converse  20:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I would not agree that the shootdown was a major incident.TheLongTone (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Alehouse dagger

Alehouse dagger (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 only 1 source and I have been unable to find any sources for this weapon. I left a message regarding this issue months ago and no new sources have been added. The bibliography is copied from the single source. I suspect the single source was made by the creator of this article due to the lack of other reliable sources and because both go by Paul. Possible WP:SELFCITE Urchincrawler (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete it only seems to feature in Thomas Nash's book and references to that. I'm not sure what the 14 books listed in the Bibliography are supposed to prove. Mztourist (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Siege of Bahrain (1811)

Siege of Bahrain (1811) (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)

One amongst many poorly sourced and unverifiable articles by this editor. Doesn't seem notable. HistoryofIran (talk) 03:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Bahrain, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete this is all very dubious, I must say. Yes, poorly sourced and yes, unverifiable and what's more blithering rot. Lorimer tells us that the Omanis attacked Bahrain, under-defended by the Wahhabis, in 1811 together with the Utub. That's it. Of Qajars, there were none. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per above. CitrusHemlock 18:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete blithering rot and complete poppycock. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Tabriz (1757)

Battle of Tabriz (1757) (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 Mohammad Hassan Khan occupied Tabriz". That is literally all this article says about this "battle". The cited source doesn't say anything more than that ("First Tabrīz fell then,). Doesn't seem notable. HistoryofIran (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Afghanistan, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete and salt, even G3. One of a number of hoaxes from this author/group that inflate minor actions/skirmishes to the title 'battle'... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Alexandermcnabb. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Ilkhanate campaign to Bithynia

Ilkhanate campaign to Bithynia (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)

One of many questionable articles by this editor. Couldn't find anything about this so called event - doesn't seem notable. This is the only part of the article that only talks about this event; "This Ilkhanid army succeeded in recapturing several Ottoman-held castles and towns in the region and dealt a blow to Osman I's forces" HistoryofIran (talk) 04:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• Lean keep, but rename Ilkhanid campaign in Bithynia. A real event. See here. Also mentioned here but without a date. I've added two links from articles that refer to it (and have for years). Srnec (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Action of 23 March 1654

Action of 23 March 1654 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article was tagged as a hoax. I'm fairly certain it is, along with Action of 2 May 1654, but since the article has existed for nearly 20 years at this point I figured it made sense to give it a fighting chance.

The 2 May 1654 article cites this JSTOR article. I couldn't find reference to events on 23 March or 2 May 1654 in that article, nor could I find evidence of these events elsewhere on the web besides Wikipedia mirrors.

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Action of 16 April 1695, where a similar conclusion was drawn. Sam Walton (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Action of 2 May 1654 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Sri Lanka, and Portugal. Sam Walton (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Merge to Dutch-Portuguese War#Incursion into the East Indies: Batavia challenges Goa. The cited JSTOR article describes in great detail the Van Goens mission to Colombo and Goa in 1653 and 1654. Page 94 reads: "The galleons had reached Colombo towards the end of March 1654 and, as Van Goens had feared, after a splintering engagement outside the Colombo harbour entrance, they had broken through". This description fits the Action of 23 March 1654 exactly: place, date, situation, context, number of ships, result. The article is certainly not a hoax; the battle indeed took place and I am sure that a more thorough investigation could reveal the source that the author of this article evidently must have used. Having said that, it is clear to me that the title of the article is wrong. For lack of a commonly accepted name for the battle, a descriptive name was employed: Action of 23 March 1654. The battle is not known and described under that name. Many articles titled "Action of (date)" have the same problem. No battle is known by such a name. A google or jstor search will not produce any result. What to do? There is a notability guideline that helps out. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide in the section Events says: Where an event does not have a specific name that has been accepted by reliable sources, it is more likely that it should be covered in an existing article about a higher-level operation, rather than in a stand-alone article. Hence, I propose to merge both the Action of 23 March 1654 and the Action of 2 May 1654 in the article about the Dutch-Portuguese War. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Ruud Buitelaar Ah - well spotted. I had assumed that because the article was named so specifically, an event on 23 March would have been specifically dated in the source, I skimmed the relevant sections but missed the quote you added. I think merging makes sense to me since the actions described here did actually happen. Sam Walton (talk) 08:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. I did a search after looking at the CSD tagging and I couldn't find any coverage in reliable sources that suggested this event took place. I was about to PROD the page since it isn't an obvious or blatant hoax, but no coverage either way. Fathoms Below (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete as the one who posted the initial CSD tag. No results turn up in Google Books or Google Scholar despite apparently being a battle from a major war, making it very likely a fabrication. Lazman321 (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced and fails verification. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to Dutch-Portuguese War#Incursion into the East Indies: Batavia challenges Goa per above. I'm not sure why you'd vote delete when a merge has been proposed with a valid target and rationale and been accepted as a solution by the nominator! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Alexandermcnabb The comment order is confusing, the merge vote came after the delete votes :) Sam Walton (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  I thought that, then checked. Of course, what I missed was the am and pm bits. Sort of important, wouldntcha think? Boing... idiot... All deleters duly forgiven, apologies and comely blushes all round. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

List of wars involving South Korea

List of wars involving South Korea (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)

Propose redirecting List of wars involving South Korea to List of wars involving Korea#South Korea, just like List of wars involving Korea#North Korea. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wars involving North Korea (nominated by Cortador), which resulted in the same solution on 3 November 2024. NLeeuw (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, Korea, North Korea, and South Korea. NLeeuw (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Pinging other participants of previous discussion for follow-up: @Mikrobølgeovn, MolecularPilot, and My very best wishes:. NLeeuw (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

This outcome (the merger) was most unfortunate. Although Korea has been a divided country since the 1940s, editors seem adamant to treat it as a single country. We don't we give Sudan and South Sudan the same treatment, for good measure? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF Cortador (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Mikrobølgeovn has a point, but I think the comparison of Korea with Sudan and South Sudan does not work well. Below I've presented some thoughts on comparing Yemen and Korea, curious what editors think of that. NLeeuw (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment: One of the arguments used by nom of previous AfD was This also has precedent e.g. East and West Germany don't have separate pages for their wars, and neither do North and South Vietnam or North and South Yemen. The first half is true, but not the second: We've got List of wars involving North Yemen, List of wars involving South Yemen, as well as List of wars involving Yemen. However, given the significant amount of WP:OVERLAP between the three, we might consider the North and South lists WP:REDUNDANTFORKs, to be merged into List of wars involving Yemen. (The obvious difference being that North and South Yemen no longer exist, only a united Yemen, at least officially; by contrast, a united Korea no longer exists, but a North and South Korea do, despite claiming the whole peninsula for themselves.) But that would be a good idea for a follow-up if this AfD has been closed as nominated. NLeeuw (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. As with the list of wars involving North Korea, declaring historical states on the territory of modern South Korea (like Goryeo) to be predecessors to South Korea specifically is questionable. There's currently no need for a separate article. Cortador (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

We should have a main one for Korea, with links to separate lists for North Korea and South Korea. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I am open to this alternative proposal of three separate lists:

1. Korea until 1948
2. North Korea since 1948
3. South Korea since 1948

@Shazback below seems to be suggesting the same thing.

If we do choose for this alternative, I would recommend including the words until 1948 and since 1948 in the article titles just to make clear to both readers and editors what the scope of each list is, and to prevent creating WP:REDUNDANTFORKs again. Cortador was right that we shouldn't duplicate content, but merging all three lists into one might not be the best solution. Also for readability, navigability, and categorisation purposes, three separate lists would solve several practical problems, including the untenable idea that there is still a unified Korean state as of 2024. NLeeuw (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Very surprised by the outcome of the previous AfD, which I did not see/participate in. I would be surprised to be directed to a page covering wars of multiple states if I was looking for either one.
  My suggestion would for "List of wars involving Korea" to be a disambiguation page with 3 pages listed: "List of wars involving states of the Korean peninsula (pre-1948)"; "List of wars involving North Korea"; "List of wars involving South Korea". Both the latter pages only include post-1948 conflicts, and can have a section at the beginning stating that the state claim succession to pre-1948 states if necessary.
  This follows the most common way people view and analyse the world when considering wars (by state), avoids duplication by clearly separating historical lists where states did not match current territories (e.g., whatever criteria are most relevant for inclusion can be decided, for instance to consider the Ungjin Commandery without needing to worry if either South or North Korea claim it as a predecessor state), while remaining clear link targets that can be found easily. Shazback (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Most of these articles list every war that happened at a location, instead of the current nation. List of wars involving the United States doesn't list the wars that happened there between native Americans or others before the nation was officially founded. Dream Focus 18:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps because the United States does not claim succession of those states? Plenty of other articles list them by geography / include predecessor states to the current country (e.g., List of wars involving Poland, List of wars involving Vietnam). Shazback (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  As a general rule, we do not create lists or categories based on the geographic location where a war or battle took place, as this is usually WP:NONDEFINING. See WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. These lists are about belligerents involved in a conflict, not countries etc. where the conflict took place. Therefore, there are no battles "involving the United States" prior to the American Revolutionary War. NLeeuw (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  Not sure I follow / understand fully your comment. Both pages I shared include plenty of elements that occured prior to the current constitution / establishment of the Third Polish Republic or the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Many of these are lineage / predecessor states that had claim over the general area of the current state (not identical borders). Furthermore, a cursory / quick look at both these lists as well as the list of wars involving the United States shows they include cases were the state is not a belligerent per se: Bleeding Kansas in the USA list, the Later Trần rebellion (1407–1414) in the Vietnam list, and the Januszajtis putsch in the Poland list. I'd also note that World War I is listed as a conflict involving Poland, despite Poland not existing at any point during the war as a clear indication geography is considered when compiling these lists. These lists are not pages I like / find very useful exactly because of the points made in the WP: pages you linked. When looking at wars of Country A, my personal expectation is to see only the wars of what is commonly understood to be Country A in current geopolitics (i.e., for North Korea, 1948+, for the USA 1775/6+, for Poland 1918+, for Vietnam 1976+). But that's not how many other people like it, as they expect to see predecessor states' wars included in these lists. Shazback (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  My comment was a reply to both Dream Focus and you. I'm not necessarily disagreeing, just adding some thoughts and pointing to some relevant policies and guidelines. NLeeuw (talk) 11:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Offensive in Podrinje (1993)

Offensive in Podrinje (1993) (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)

After removing unreliable local news portals etc, we are left with citations to two pages of the CIA history. I checked them, and all three of the citations failed verification, the only apparent reference to this fighting being a paragraph fragment as follows: "The VRS Drina Corps attacked again late in May and crushed Muslim forces in the salient , driving them back some 15 kilometers to the Praca River and eliminating the threat to Visegrad . Follow - on attacks from Cajnice in the southeast toward Gorazde itself , however , gained little ground . " on page 185. This isn't significant coverage, and therefore doesn't meet WP:N. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, to be clear i didnt put this sources but i think that this offensive is in one official book, i will try to find and add content in it, if its bad or not proper, then delete the whole thing (just please dont bring opera singer admins to blocc me like in smolucca) Wynnsanity (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks like someone didn't go to geography classes. Podrinje means "on the river Drina" or "next to the Drina" and thus includes the entire region. at the same time, I checked your claims and of course they are fake, if you had entered and edited the pages without bad intentions, you would have seen that on page 186 it is written "The Bosnian Serbs had nevertheless achieved most of their 1993 objectives in the Drina valley and This time Muslim bravery alone was not enough to prevail against the stronger, better organized and better led Serb troops. The text is badly written and the sources are in the wrong place, but I won't say anything because I understand everything about you and I don't want to be blocked because I love Wikipedia. If you would be kind enough to allow me to only summarize the entire Balkan Battlegrounds article here as I did before, I would appreciate it, thank you Sir Wynnsanity (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

If you keep adding material to articles that is clearly not supported by the sources, then you are clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia. I’m not sure what it is you think you are doing, but it is extremely unhelpful to the encyclopaedia. Please stop doing it, either through this account, meat puppets or IPs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

??? 1) I only use this account, the fact that other users are not satisfied with you is your problem 2.) I wrote a text that only appears in Balkan Battl. 3.) you have no arguments and never had any 2A00:10:9910:4C01:193C:197E:5B6B:E8CC (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

They say, from an IP. With regards especially to your last point, please remember not to make personal attacks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

George M. Murray (scientist)

George M. Murray (scientist) (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)

Potentially notable academic. Currently fails WP:NPROF. Been on the cat:nn list since 2010. No indication of significance but could be. scope_creep^Talk 09:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Military, Science, Iowa, Maryland, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree that the subject does not meet WP:NPROF. Although the page does not directly say so, the subject is an adjunct research professor at a high-tech satellite campus of UT-Knoxville (https://www.utsi.edu/people/faculty/george-m-murray/, https://www.utsi.edu/about/). I don't see enough citations of their academic work to justify C1 of WP:NPROF and nothing else seems to apply either. This could be revisited in the future since the subject seems to be an active scholar and inventor, but not enough here to keep the page, I think. Qflib (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Somewhat agree. I see no major indications of peer recognition through awards, and he does not have that many publications. The reason I have a Weak is because his initials overlap with at least one other so I cannot properly check his citations. I am also uncertain about his patents. If there was an award or two I would definitely reverse my vote. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  A major award would be enough to satisfy Wikipedia:NPROF, and if something like that were to crop up I would also swing. But the only award seen here is one given by his own university, and internal awards are not suitable for this purpose. Qflib (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. GS[3] shows top citations 392, 167, 114, 101 but then a big drop off. They all seem to be the same researcher, but with no profile there's no information on h-index. Fifty papers does not seem a lot for a modern chemist, I wonder if his work is mainly unpublished because it relates to patented inventions? Willing to be persuaded either way. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, I think fifty papers and a bunch of patents is a decent body of work, but if they aren't being widely recognized then they don't establish notability. Qflib (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Its not enough per the usual standard of notability. There is no patents on Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 20:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

There is plenty of coverage of patents on Wikipedia; see as one small example List of software patents. I don't think patents should count as contributing to WP:PROF#C1, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I've hadn't seen this. There are not used in biographies, blps to clarify. I've certainly not seen any. It needs a major update unfortunatly. scope_creep^Talk 04:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: What is your view on this? scope_creep^Talk 04:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Given that his top papers are on detecting nerve agents and purifying uranium, I suspect that the publication drop-off may have something to do with performing classified military work. Regardless, if it's not something we see it's not something we can credit for notability. I'm not very familiar with the citation patterns in analytic chemistry (if that is what this is) so not very confident in my opinion, but I don't want to base a keep only on what looks like a borderline citation record for WP:PROF#C1, and I don't see anything else aside from that to provide notability. There are a couple of minor and local honors listed in [4] but not enough to count for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 09:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

IWI Galil Sniper

IWI Galil Sniper (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 previously redirected the page to IMI Galil based on NPP guidelines, but the creator has expressed some concerns. I still think it’s just a variant of the Galil and doesn’t need its own page. WP:REDUNDANTFORK Charlie (talk) 03:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Charlie (talk) 03:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to IMI Galil#Variants#Galil Sniper. Seems like this weapon is already covered in that article under its own subheading.4meter4 (talk) 03:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to or merge with IMI Galil. I know nothing about these weapons, and maybe don't need to. The older (2002) IMI Galil has 20069 characters (3284 words) "readable prose size" and 77 sources. The newer (2024) IWI Galil Sniper has 1736 characters (292 words) "readable prose size" and only two sources, both of which are in the lead. Assuming the 2024 IWI Galil Sniper is accurate in content and sourcing, redirect to, or merge into, the 2002 IMI Galil. — Maile (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Firearms. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. I am the topic creator, and before I explain why this topic should be kept, I want to thank Charlie for initiating this AfD proposal to determine whether there is a consensus to delete this topic. Regarding this thread, the IWI Galil Sniper is based on the IMI Galil#Galil ARM variation which itself is a variation of the IMI Galil. The IMI Galil is a 5.56×45mm NATO and 7.62×51mm NATO assault rifle, whereas the IWI Galil Sniper serves a completely different combat role as a 7.62×51mm NATO sniper rifle. Since the IWI Galil Sniper fulfills a distinct role and is derived, not variant, as it has different weight, parts and combat role, there is encyclopedic value in having a dedicated topic for it, similar to the treatment in Galil Sniper[he], and that's why I translated it into the English Wikipedia, adhering to the guidelines outlined in WP:Translation (I'm also registered in WP:TRLA). IdanST (talk) 09:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Just because there's an article on certain topic on he.wiki doesn’t mean we have to create one on en.wiki, as en.wiki might have different standards for article creation than he.wiki. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect or merge with the main Galil article. There simply aren't enough differences between this weapon and the base platform in my view to require a separate article. Intothatdarkness 14:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to IMI Galil#Galil Sniper. The main content of this article is already covered in IMI Galil#Galil Sniper, making it a clear case of WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Also, this article only cites two sources: one is the official website (a primary source that cannot be used to establish notability), and the other is snipercentral.com, which is likely non-RS. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

List of terrorist incidents in North Macedonia

List of terrorist incidents in North Macedonia (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 whole article is originally researched and violates MOS:TERRORIST. The sources are not conclusive about whether any of these events can be designated as "terrorist". StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Terrorism, and North Macedonia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep. There is no originally research here nor MOS:TERRORIST violation. In fact, there are no resources in this article and barely any explanation besides "North Macedonia is a landlocked country in Southeast Europe. It shares land borders with Kosovo to the northwest, Serbia to the north, Bulgaria to the east, Greece to the south, and Albania to the west. Below is an incomplete list of terrorist incidents that occurred in North Macedonia" and a list of Wikipedia topics of attacks and conflicts. IdanST (talk) 10:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

That's the originally researched part. There are no reliable sources that classify these incidents as "terrorist". StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

All sources are listed in their respective Wikipedia articles, and from an initial review and checking some, they appear to be reliable. IdanST (talk) 10:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I have edited those articles. Articles themselves are not considered reliable. List articles are also subject to WP:V, so citing sources is required on such articles too.

Even if we go by the articles, we'll see that on its respective article, the 2001 insurgency is not classified as a terrorist incident. Neither are the Vejce massacre, Kondovo crisis and the 2014 government attack (unresolved case), nor have I encountered sources who classify them as such. The attack at Gošince has been classified as such by the government but the case is unresolved. The Smilkovci Lake killings have also been classified as such by the government and some experts (before the convictions), and there were also terrorism convictions. The Kumanovo clashes have also been classified as such by the government and there were terrorism convictions. All three occurred when there were ethnic tensions and a political crisis, so their status is controversial. StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, it's WP:V violation. I've added RS to all listed attacks. However, I don't know how 2001 insurgency in Macedonia is related to this list. IdanST (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Dečan operation

Dečan 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)

The entire section on the operation itself is unsourced, and it has 0 information on the actual operation, only explaining the lay-out of the operation and that the KLA were entrenched. The sources only mention the casualties and are not in-depth. The article is also not writen from a neutral prespective with it refering to the KLA as "terrorists" and using serbian letters for Albanian names like Hashim Thaçi. This article is WP:NOT Peja mapping (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. Shellwood (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

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

List of serving generals of the People's Republic of China

List of serving generals of the People's Republic of China (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 list purports to include all "serving generals of the PRC", but in fact only lists 7 generals occupying some key posts. It's not at all clear that a list of all active generals in an army of 2,000,000+ personnel could ever be kept up to date. I'm not even sure that China publishes the names of all top officers.

Renaming could be an option, but it's not clear what the name would be.

Additionally, it's not really Wikipedia's core mission to provide lists of current anythings (WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTTEMPORARY). I could imagine a more appropriate list which included all historic commanders, and gave readers a timeline of command, but that's not what this is.

FWIW, the list has been unreferenced since its inception, although I imagine this deficiency could be remedied easily enough. pburka (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Military, and China. pburka (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep at present. Passes WP:NLIST as a clearly defined set. Also top military personnel in a major world power would be easily sourced. Making arguments about WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTTEMPORARY would be more convincing if there weren't many other lists of this kind. We have a Category:Lists of active duty military personnel and the arguments being made here seem to be pertinent to all the lists currently in that category. It would be better to make this a bundled nomination if we are going to generally attack the idea of pages listing active duty military personnel. I suspect that when looked at as a group, there might be support for keeping such lists as encyclopedic. Lastly, the other argument that this is incomplete is spurious as we have policies on dynamic and incomplete lists as well as stub pages which support their inclusion and instruct editors to improve/expand coverage rather than delete them. Being incomplete is not a valid reason for deletion.4meter4 (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the thoughtful contribution. I shouldn't argue that the list is incomplete, but that it's ill-defined. It's not a list of all current generals, but a list of generals in selected important posts. There's no explanation of why these posts were included, and I don't see any reliable sources discussing this group of officers. However, if the content were changed to match the title, I still think it could be problematic. It's difficult to even find an estimate of how many PLA generals there are. Regarding the WP:OTHERSTUFF, we have more complete lists of the general staffs of America, Bangladesh, Britain, India, and Pakistan. I also question the encyclopedic value of these, but only brought the Chinese list to AfD because of its other deficiencies. pburka (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• This list cannot stay the way it is. The scope given by its title is too broad and doesn't match the far more limited scope of its content. If it did, it would basically duplicate List of generals of China. Either we should move to List of current Chinese military leaders or something similar, or we should merge to List of generals of China. Toadspike [Talk] 10:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  The similar lists at Category:Lists of active duty military personnel all have a more limited scope than this one. If this list is kept in some form, it should probably be split by rank and/or branch. Toadspike [Talk] 10:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Scott Helvenston

Scott Helvenston (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)

Delete and redirect to 2004 Fallujah ambush, the redirect target for the other 3 victims of the ambush. Coverage of Helvenston is in relation to the ambush or subsequent events. Otherwise he was one of thousands of individuals killed during the Iraq War. His notability is due only to the ambush, therefore delete per WP:BIO1E. Longhornsg (talk) 06:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, Terrorism, Iraq, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 06:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - He is known for more than just one event – he was on a reality TV show and was a credited Hollywood consultant, and was the subject of a dedicated LA Times obituary [5]. - Fuzheado | Talk 07:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect: as above. I don't see notability outside of the event. 20 years later and there is no sourcing to be found. Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  "No sourcing?" The LA Times source has been added to the article, and there is notability outside of this one event. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  I still don't see how he's more notable than any one else killed in the attack. There were too many deaths in the war, most aren't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect per WP:BIO1E, a few sentences/short para there is all that's warranted. Mztourist (talk) 13:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per Fuzheado. The journalist/editorial staff written obituary in the Los Angeles Times makes it clear the subject was known for his appearances on television, and as a personal trainer to celebrities in addition to the 2004 Fallujah ambush. WP:BIO1E therefore does not apply as the subject was known for more than one thing. This is further supported by coverage of him in a scholarly book on the History of Reality TV] published by Random House. There is coverage in google books of his work on television and his career as a soldier. Passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect Not enough SIGCOV, agree totally on WP:BIO1E and redirect. Last time I looked, personal trainer to the stars didn't shoe you in past WP:GNG. As an interesting footnote, Helvenston v. Blackwater Security. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

2023–2024 Gaza Strip preterm births

2023–2024 Gaza Strip preterm births (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 seems to be an overly specific and redundant article given the Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) which already exists and provides key context needed to cover this topic. Very limited coverage on this singular issue as a standalone topic exists with such coverage normally being mentioned in passing as part of the greater crisis. Originalcola (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• Should be deleted as WP:G5; only significant contributions are from two sockpuppets. BilledMammal (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, Medicine, Israel, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:GNG with flying colours. If anything, it should be expanded using the many RS that cover the subject. M.Bitton (talk) 13:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  I’d strongly argue that this is not the case. Outside of regular news reporting on the crisis where passing mention is given to preterm births there isn’t any coverage of this topic as a standalone, much less significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Originalcola (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - easily passes GNG, beyond that Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) sits at 89 kB and 14,335 words of readable prose, making it WP:TOOBIG to absorb all this material and this an appropriate WP:SPINOFF for size reasons. And no, this does not qualify for G5, as I myself have a non-trivial edit there. Last I checked I am not a sock of a banned user. nableezy - 18:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  Did I miss something? As far as I can tell, the only edit you have is reverting a sock? BilledMammal (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  That is still a substantive edit. nableezy - 13:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think you're misinterpreting the intent of the rule there, although there are other non-sock editors who have made substantive non-revert posts. Originalcola (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  A merger would probably only add 100-200 words to whatever article it’s merged with. It might make more sense to merge it with Effect of the Israel–Hamas war on children in the Gaza Strip if size is still too great a concern. Originalcola (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  How do you figure that unless you gut the entirety of what is merged? nableezy - 13:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  It was a guesstimate but when merging you'd probably not transfer the lead and background. Both articles have a section or a decent amount of information on Gaza preterm births already, so you wouldn't have to copy all 797 words on this page over. Originalcola (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I don’t really care if the article is deleted or merged, but I removed several sources that were either live updates from news liveblogs or Tweets. So I think the article needs cleaning up. Also I think it is written in news reporting style: on November 12, X happened, then on November 13, Y happened, etc…. I don’t think Wikipedia is supposed to have so many articles written like this unless I am misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS. More experienced editors may be able to help improve the article and sourcing. Wafflefrites (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:G5. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep There is a raft of relevant coverage from aid agencies, rights groups and all the major newsorgs (just search premature babies Gaza to see) so GNG is easily met, passing mention is simply untrue. The article does need improvement but that's not a reason to delete, I already restored one item adding a secondary to deal with a "newsblog" complaint (these sources are already used in other related articles, btw). G5 was already tried twice and successfully challenged leading to this AfD so "per WP:G5" is not a reason to delete either. Selfstudier (talk) 12:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  According to another experienced editor on here, “No pages should really be using live blogs long-term as sources. This is a WP:NOTNEWS issue as much as anything else. Because yes, live blogs are just a stream of off-the-cuff news and unredacted commentary.” Per WP:NEWSBLOG, they should be used with caution. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  What's "unredacted commentary"? Anyway, I added a secondary to the restored material so not a problem. Just some work to locate secondaries, that's all. Selfstudier (talk) 14:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete I have to be honest. Everything that CarmenEsparzaAmoux touched leaves a sour taste in my mouth. When we're crying out for neutrality and independence in this contentious area, the consequences of their actions are so destructive and this isn't about sides. It would be similarly damaging if they were making pro Israel edits. Sticking to the facts about this article - I have to agree with the citing of WP:G5 MaskedSinger (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - as noted above, G5 alone is a good reason to delete, as is WP:SOAP. I’m entirely sympathetic to the issues - I created Palestinian law - but we are also primarily a news organization. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment "we are also primarily a news organization" That is news to me. Since when are we supposed to simply offer news coverage instead of being an encyclopedia? Dimadick (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - I've already restored most of the deleted content, it wasn't hard to find proper sources to back it up, and I've also added more information. The topic is notable. I don't fully agree with WP:G5 - being a sockpuppet doesn't necessarily means all your edits are trash. We should keep what is salvageable, and in this case, I don't see any significant issues with the existing article, which can certainly be expanded. - Ïvana (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  Kudos to you for doing that, but there's still a complete lack of secondary sources on this page, with non-routine news coverage on the topic of this article not existing. I don't think this is the right venue to talk about the merits of the G5 rule. Originalcola (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  Routine news coverage is about announcements and scheduled events. All of the sources in the article are secondary and all of them are non-routine. nableezy - 01:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm going to ignore the completely reasonable "I don't think this is the right venue to talk about the merits of the G5 rule". My view is that the G5 condition "...and that have no substantial edits by others not subject to the ban or sanctions" is a mistake. It's a self-defeating strategy that rewards and incentivizes ban evasion by over-estimating the importance of preserving content and under-estimating the importance of having effective ban evasion countermeasures. I think articles created by people employing deception in contentious topic areas where socks are common should be deleted even if there are hundreds of 'substantial edits' by other editors, even if there are tens of thousands of daily pageviews, and even if the article has attained featured article status. If the subject matters, other people, not employing deception, will have the same idea at some point and create it again. There's no deadline for content or need to take a short-term view. Anyway, having got that futile rant out of the way, I don't know what "substantial edits by others" actually means in terms of quantities, but here are the quantities in the form of token counts for the content of the current version of the page.

  CarmenEsparzaAmoux 67.3%, Ïvana 15.3%, MWQs 8.9%, Wafflefrites 4.2%, with Nableezy, Pincrete, טבעת-זרם each having less than 1%.

Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Uninvolved admin note, G5 had been brought up and the tag has also been declined twice. Rather than continuing to litigate that procedural element, please focus on whether the subject is notable and/or if it should be merged. The decision will be made on community consensus and not speedy grounds. Star Mississippi 21:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Effect_of_the_Israel–Hamas_war_on_children_in_the_Gaza_Strip#Premature_babies where this is already covered at the appropriate level of detail. We are an encyclopedia, not a news organization, which means that it is inappropriate to cover a current event at this minute level of detail. Being created by a blocked sock does not help. Sandstein 19:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete -After looking at the arguments, I still think that deletion is the best approach. There's no significant coverage on pre-term births that could meet the standards of notability as per WP:GNG. At present, all the sources on the page are primary sources (predominantly news reports) and there does not exist secondary sources focused mainly on the topic of this article. Even if such coverage did exist, which is doubtful, no editor has made a convincing reason as to why the content of this article would not be better served as part of another larger article as per the reasons I stated when initially proposing this page for deletion. Originalcola (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Double vote Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete – Whatever is relevant to the topic can be cited in existing articles on the conflict. It seems totally problematic in WP:BIAS and full of WP:OVERKILL, not to mention being a specific theme just to a small niche. Svartner (talk) 04:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 10:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:G5 and redirect to Effect_of_the_Israel–Hamas_war_on_children_in_the_Gaza_Strip#Premature_babies.4meter4 (talk) 10:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  G5 is no longer a reason to delete and redirect is effectively a merge? Selfstudier (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

2024 New Way Cargo Airlines Ilyushin Il-76 shootdown

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/2024 New Way Cargo Airlines Ilyushin Il-76 shootdown (3rd nomination)

2024 New Way Cargo Airlines Ilyushin Il-76 shootdown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:NOTNEWS although notable at first sustained coverage died off quick. There has been no expanded reports on the incident. A crash of a heavy aircraft with fatalities under 10 has no notability in itself.

@ me in the below discussion when you comment so i can get the fastest response or see your comment ASAP. Lolzer3k 03:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Aviation, and Sudan. Lolzer3k 03:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - Not a scheduled flight or a passenger flight (these are generally considered automatically notable), and it appears to have been a military flight or military-operated flight, in which case a shootdown isn't notable, it's fortunes of war. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - I created this article when it was said that this was a civilian cargo plane, but since now it is practiacally confirmed it was a military one, and since no important figures were killed, and there were no particular consequences nor continued coverage I think we Can delete it. - SignorPignolini _Talk 06:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I was going to suggest a merge but I see there's already a brief, but sufficient, mention at the bottom of the Sudanese civil war (2023–present) § United Arab Emirates section. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Jay D. Easy (t) 20:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per norm. EBLDP (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• Weak keep This won't be kept, but the only issue with it is really that the coverage window was too close in time to the accident. Articles like this show that there may be further coverage, in which case I would have absolutely no problem restoring this article. SportingFlyer T·C 20:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep – The event has received significant in-depth coverage in secondary sources that currently justify its retention. It's too soon to determine whether the event will have sustained continued coverage or lasting effects. Sources: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviationwikiflight (talk • contribs) 15:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep - This is a very significant event politically and also is quite a significant aviation incident. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

References

• Keep: I believe this event meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines:

1. Significance: The incident involves a military aircraft, and any military engagements resulting in casualties often have broader implications for regional stability and/or international relations. This particular event is noteworthy given the ongoing issues Sudan is facing.
2. Media Coverage: There has been significant media coverage of the incident, which explains what happened in the incident thoroughly. Reliable sources have reported on the details of the event. Some citations which I easily found are here, here, here, and here that discuss the incident in detail.
3. Aviation Context: This incident is part of a bigger story about military planes that have accidents in war zones. Adding it to Wikipedia helps people understand the dangers and problems that military aircraft deal with. Also, I don't think heavy military aircraft, like the Il-76, involved in shoot-downs is ordinary. They do have significant information.

Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 05:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 05:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep per Hacked. This is a significant incident with in-depth coverage. The reference to guidelines for “routine” coverage in the earlier discussion are strained. WilsonP NYC (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Weak Keep There's nothing WP:ROUTINE about this story or its coverage. Per Hacked, this article details a significant event, for which there has been WP:SIGCOV. Although the coverage seems to have died down, it think it's still too soon for deletion.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of airliner shootdown incidents per WP:ATD. Failing that, delete for failing WP:EVENTCRIT. The article has not received WP:SUSTAINED coverage no matter how many keep voters are distorting the claims to say it is. The sources just aren't there. Likewise, there is no clear source based evidence of long-term significance. Appears to be a relatively minor incident within a war.4meter4 (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete even the article creator agrees with delete - and the argument that the incident is adequately covered in the Sudanese civil war (2023–present) article is a compelling one. Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandermcnabb (talk • contribs) 10:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  Drat... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - unnecessary fork of the main Sudanese War article and in of itself a nonsignificant event in a bigger war. Only the same couple of war observer sources talked about it when it first occurred with less coverage or investigation given to it elsewhere. It is unnecessary to create articles for every military shoot down in a prolonged war. Gorebath (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep A notable event during the war. Shooting down of a large freighter aircraft. The Il-76 had only been shot down once or twice during its service history. Sgnpkd (talk) 09:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Siege of Smoluća

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Siege of Smoluća
• Articles for deletion/Siege of Smoluća (2nd nomination)

Siege of Smoluća (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 siege, its relief and the evacuation of the population is covered in a short paragraph in the comprehensive two-volume US history of these wars, Balkan Battlegrounds. It doesn't include much of what is in the current paragraph headed Order of battle, and when summarised would amount to a few sentences at best. A Google Books search adds very little in terms of possible reliable sources, none of which constitute significant coverage. I could trim it down to just what the source does say, but the editor responsible has done this before, and therefore this is a classic WP:TNT candidate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I should add that this was a minor action in the overall fighting for the Posavina region from March 1992 to January 1993, and might be mentioned in a larger article on those operations. But it is definitely not notable on its own. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete: Can't find enough significant coverage to justify keeping the article. Coverage may exist, but if it exists it is probably buried in obscure books. Noah ^💬 20:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

prolonged back-and-forth with a user who is now blocked as a CU-confirmed sock.

Hello, i can add sources to this article if you let me. It will take a little bit of time because i am finding sources for another article Wynnsanity (talk) 09:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC) In my opinion you are not right. This is a sige and if we have siege of žepa and another smaller cities we should have for this also. Its not the minor action because a lot of civis were saved and both sides took heavy casulties. There are also not so much books about this war in english because nobody cares to be honest about balkans. I agree that is bad if we have only 1 english and 10 serb sources on english wiki but the other articles for other side also have just some tabloid blogs and they are not deleted or even marked as "bad sources", is it a coincidence? I would not say so All the best Wynnsanity (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC) All you need is significant coverage in reliable sources. They don't have to be in English. telegraf.rs isn't a reliable source, neither are blogs, fora, local town news portals with no real editorial oversight, or fanboi websites. Most of the articles being created about the Balkan wars of the 90s at the moment are incredibly poorly sourced. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC) I totally agree that telegraph is not good source. Can you give me a day or two to find better? I think that they are very badly sources because people from that area dont write or talk about it much, its "taboo". Thanks Wynnsanity (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC) Hi Peacemaker, i will undo your text edit today if its okay for you because it will be a lot easier for me to work on this article if i have first version not this one, i will also add content and relevant sources to it right after. I hope you understand and dont mind. Best Wynnsanity (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC) No need, I was caught up with other things and neglected this article. As peace maker said, it does not need its own article since this was a part of a wider Bosnian TO campaign in Lukavac. I might also add that when I first made this article, I was very inexperienced and didn’t know anything about copyright. Orhov (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC) i made changes and fixed the problem that peacemaker suggested, if you are the editor its up to you, best Wynnsanity (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC) I believe the article should be retained if more is added, like a prelude or aftermath, that is if it is backed up by reliable material. If not, then that is fine with me. Orhov (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC) I will try to include that, thanks Wynnsanity (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC) The citations that have been added, like "Fooian & Foo 2002, p. XXX" are not verifiable as they don't provide the title of the book, or publisher etc. No-one can look at it and then check if it is reliable and accurately reflects what is is supposed to be supporting. Unless the full citations are added, we cannot be assured that significant coverage exists in reliable sources, and therefore the article should be deleted. Also, the removal of the material about the Serbs evacuating and withdrawing due to ARBiH pressure and the town being occupied by them is directly relevant to the subject, and deletion of it could be considered censorship to only indicate one side's version of the engagement. I strongly suggest you re-instate it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC) I am sorry but this is totally absurd. First of all, in Bosnia people are all Bosnians(muslim, orthodox and catholic) and you cant look at them "black and white" like you do and in every article saying "Bosnians never did anything", "Bosnian atrocities i dont think so" etc. When we few people(editors) who are benevolently editing wikipedia will be deprived of your non-existent criteria where you always want more and more and more and then delete our works and add stars to your main page for contributions, cringe. This is not "one side" POV because here in the article they only explain what happend during the siege and shelling wich is fair and totally honest and you cant as wiki admin look to this topic like that one side never did anything bad and want a milion sources to be "assured", thats not serious. And when one neutral editor "Fanboi" as you called him posted yesterday all that you have asked for(siege, civis..) you have ofcourse ignored and continued with your agenda. Article was in bad shape until we make it be a lot better with our good faith edits, i personally have a big collection about this topics and this is not Naoleonic War to have thousand best sources. I will undo my edits because i dont know how to add and you will have another sources from other editors wich are also not your taste but every article with "Sanjak NEWS, BLOGSPOT" is okay and "reliable" to you because one side is always the victim and we are all "Fanboi", says who? Bill Clinton? Pretty sad to be honest. Wynnsanity (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC) what are you on about exactly? I have never done anything of the sort. I have rarely edited articles about the Yugoslav Wars of the 90s because I was there for some of it, but the sudden flurry of poorly sourced articles about obscure events drew my attention. Have you even read the reliable source policy? The verifiability policy? These are fundamental to what we do, as is WP:NPOV. All en WP expects is for these many newly created articles on the Yugoslav Wars to be notable in their own right and reliably sourced. If that is too much for you, then perhaps en WP is not for you. If you tell me what the titles are of the books you provided short citations (authors and year of publication, but nothing else) for, I can check them for reliability and that they actually support what you say they do. If they are reliable and do what you say, then perhaps the article will meet WP:N. I know it can be frustrating when other editors question your work, but that is what we do here. It isn't a blog or forum. In any case, take a chill pill, good grief... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC) I did a Google search for Borojević and it quickly identified him as a self-published author of aviation books (in the main), and results also indicate he served in the JNA then VRS during the Bosnian War and continued to serve in the VRS afterwards. So, for starters, he's not a historian; secondly, he's self-published; and he's closely affiliated with the VRS given he served in the VRS and the VRS were involved in this engagement. The perception (if not actuality) of a conflict of interest and a likely axe to grind is pretty obvious. I cannot see how his book can be considered reliable, and it certainly can't be used to demonstrate the notability of an article. I will now remove the citations to Borojević from the article. If you believe the book is reliable, feel free to ask for a community opinion at WP:RSN. I have also posted this to Wynnsanity's talk page. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC) You tell me to take pills to calm down, knowing that I'm right in everything I said, but it doesn't matter, I'm used to it here. This is isnt blogforum but is also not your forum to whatever you want. I apologize because I did not write in English how to get to the book, so it turned out that I was manipulating, which is not the case. I think the editor wrote according to that book, I didn't know it was self-proclaimed because it seemed official to me Wynnsanity (talk) 09:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC) Let’s be really clear here. Nothing I am saying is MY “policy”. Everything I have observed reflects English Wikipedia policy. Now we have more “references” without a title or publisher. What are the titles of the books please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC) I see that is impossible to talk with you. You can sell that story to someone else, not me. I don't want to waste my time on insignificant things when anyone with a wrong woldview of can destroy my hard and good work. I'm done with this so delete and do whatever you want. goodbye 2A00:10:990A:F501:40F6:9E0D:C07D:A148 (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete for this kind of contentious and contested topic I’d expect sources of the highest quality. Failing that I don’t think we should take anything on trust. There’s too much POV-driven Balkan rubbish on this site anyway. Mccapra (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• This article has already been to AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• Update I have now removed all the material that is not supported by the two main sources (separate chapters in the same book), both of have barely a paragraph or less on this siege, and some concluding material from the CIA history of the Balkan conflicts. I have removed material supposedly supported by the bare citations with no long citation, as I can't conduct verification. I have also cleaned up the infobox to remove material not supported by the sources. The image has been removed, as it is obviously just a screen shot from a video on youtube or whatever, and is therefore a blatant copyright violation. Other than some minor additional detail from the CIA history, this is the sum total of what is in the verified sources. Please do not restore unsupported material, I will just delete it. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Peacemaker67, are you still in favour of deleting the article? -- asilvering (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• I’m just working through the additional sources, so not sure yet. My view is that the main body (not background) needs to have more than one good source that gives this siege significant coverage, in order for it to meet WP:N. Once I’ve checked everything, I’ll review my nomination and see if I reckon it should still be deleted. Thanks for following up. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep the edited down version by Peacemaker as it passes WP:SIGCOV and removes the WP:OR. If there are future problems after this AFD, I suggest a topic ban be imposed on Red Spino and Wynnsanity and some kind of Protection added to the page. I hope the closing admin will continue to monitor the page and pursue that course of action if there are recurring problems.4meter4 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Normally we only relist a debate twice, but I am making an exception here due to the filibustering of the first week of debate by a user now confiormed to be a sockpuppet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Military Proposed deletions

The following articles have been tagged for proposed deletion:

Current PRODs

• 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