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

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)

Fort Greene, North Carolina

Fort Greene, North Carolina (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 believe I have found a hoax as part of WP:NOV24. It seems unusual to me that a US Army fort established in 1890 and was used through World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and present as claimed by the article would have no online presence; newspapers.com results in North Carolina for Fort Greene are referring to fortifications elsewhere, and there's no mention of a Fort Greene in North Carolina in Hanning's "Forts of the United States". I have found some evidence of a "Camp Green" in NC that existed from 1917-1919, but I cannot find anything supporting the existence of this or the specific claims in the article. A review of the page creator's talk page suggests that the page creator had a history of creating hoaxes. Hog Farm _Talk 22:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and North Carolina. Hog Farm _Talk 22:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NRV. I also came across this during WP:NOV24 and found no evidence (online at least) of it having existed - Dumelow (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect Not a hoax, but this is definitely referring to Camp Greene, which we already have an article on. Henry Hill and George Johnson (World War I supercentenarian) were both trained there. Silverseren^C 23:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I'd be hesistant to call this not a hoax. This article claims (and has since 2007) It was established in 1890 and was used through World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and present. The facility trains U.S. Army soldiers and National Guard soldiers. Camp Greene was in existence from 1917-1919, so the claims about 1890, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and the present day all appear to be patently false. Hog Farm _Talk 23:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:V and whille it may *originate* with Camp Greene it's embellished to the point of being a WP:HOAX by an author who admitted to writing hoax articles. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Camp Greene, per Silver seren. Even if the information currently in the nominated article is a hoax, the title can still be redirected, given the commonality of using both "Fort" and "Camp" for military installations. BD2412 T 15:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

List of wars involving Magadha

List of wars involving Magadha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unnecessary article doesnt needed already mentioned very much on List of wars involving India.Such type of articles should be for present day entities. Edasf (talk) 10:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

List of wars involving Mughal Empire exists

List of wars involving Ottoman Empire exists

List of wars involving the Kingdom of France exists

List of wars involving Holy Roman Empire exists JingJongPascal (talk) 10:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

All wars are properly sourced.

The Magadhan Empire and Second Magadhan Empire is seperated by 200 years

This article will help a user to view all of them in one go

While on List of wars involving India

One will have to switch time periods. JingJongPascal (talk) 10:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Some exceptions do exist and all above article like for Mughals have issue the Mughal one is functioning even more like a disambiguation page.Another thing The first or second Magadha empires separation canT give a valid reason for a separate article.There arent that much wars for Magadha majority here dont have a separate article and some even looks like created by OR. Edasf (talk) 10:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Then why do Holy Roman Empire & Kingdom of France exist ? JingJongPascal (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Exceptions exist They have several wars Edasf (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

they are already included in List of wars involving Germany, yet they exist. JingJongPascal (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@JingJongPascal They have many Magadha doesn't have that big to have a separate list. The list itself looks Original Synthesis. Edasf (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete a separate list looks unwarranted. Agletarang (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep I'd prefer the title "List of wars of the Magadan Empires" but see no reason why such a list is worth deleting. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Because it's unnecessary and original synthesis. Edasf (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  How so? Most of these wars ,a article page exists JingJongPascal (talk) 08:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Dabil (1517)

Battle of Dabil (1517) (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)

Same issues as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Kerh (1516) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Qara-Hamid (1510). Doesn't seem notable, poorly formatted and unverifiable citations. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Iran, and Armenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as I can’t find any sources at all to support this. In addition Kızıl Ahmet Bey did not die at it as shown in the Infobox, and according to thus source neither did Mirza Mehmet. Created by a blocked sockpuppet. Mccapra (talk) 06:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Qara-Hamid (1510)

Battle of Qara-Hamid (1510) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fail to see how this is notable. The only two remaining citations are poorly cited (and not verifiable) and seem to be based on translation of a primary source? This was moved to draft twice because of its poor quality [1] [2] but then quickly moved back with no explanation by two brand new users [3] [4], one of them being the creator of this article. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• The second citation appears to be from this article, so Azerbaijani-speaking editors could be of help. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

That isn’t the source referred to. The pdf you linked to doesn’t have pages 500 or 501 as in the reference, and in any case doesn’t mention Qara Hamid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccapra (talk • contribs)

• Delete as I can’t find any sources in any language for this alleged battle. Mccapra (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)8
• Delete likely fabricated sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete

lacks notability and verification. Someguywhosbored (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Palestinian Authority–West Bank militias conflict

Palestinian Authority–West Bank militias conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

An article that has no connection to reality. There is no conflict as the author of the article wants to describe. In every country there are small groups that challenge the ruling authority. This does not mean that there is a conflict that requires writing an article and publishing it in an encyclopedia. EpicAdventurer (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. EpicAdventurer (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. There's ample sourcing about the resurgence of militias in the West Bank and their conflict with the Palestinian Authority. The article needs work and perhaps a new title, but the topic is clearly notable and a topic discussed in WP:RS. [5] [6] [7] [8][9] [10] [11] Longhornsg (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  Keep Yeah this, basically; there's enough sources that describe what is clearly an inter-Palestinian conflict, and not just sporadic, unrelated clashes. As for the title, it's provisional. Evaporation123 (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. "Has no connection to reality" is not a valid deletion reason, as long as reliable sources describe it this way.Whizkin (talk) 06:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Ervin Theodore Blix

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

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

Poorly sourced, and a WP:BEFORE search turned up ancestry.com-type websites. The article creator has moved this from draftspace to mainspace. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Military. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - while I laud his service to the final full measure, there are zero secondary sources. Bearian (talk) 03:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Disputed draftification, so here we are. WP:ROTM seaman, notable only to those who knew him, but fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 00:15, 10 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:

References

Justin Brock (businessman)

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

Also nominating Draft:Justin Brock (businessman)

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. Nearly all of the sources are clear paid placement marketing content. The only RS is the coverage by WCBI-TV, but it still reads suspiciously more like a press release than straight local news and isn't directly about the article subject. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 22:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Health and fitness, Military, and Companies. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 22:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete because there are zero reliable sources. I’m afraid that, with sources like that, we can’t even verify basic information about him. Bearian (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - Note Draft:Justin Brock. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  Good catch, this is a clear cut-and-paste move. I've added a history merge request. Closer should take note of this if history is merged before the AfD closes. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 19:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  History merge (histmerge for short) was done by Pppery at 20:45 (UTC) a day later. Also I've added a draft rcat and rcat shell, although it'll be rendered useless and G8 deleted should this article be deleted too. Intrisit (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete After seeing this article and its page history, it poses more like the Arshin Mehta (Actress)/Arshin Mehta article (which itself is already at AFD, but in different contexts). Good luck anyone trying to revive it after this AFD! Intrisit (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Kerh (1516)

Battle of Kerh (1516) (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)

Challenged draftification. I can’t find the necessary sources to verify and establish the subject’s notability. The subject currently fails to meet WP:GNG. Please ping me if you can find sources. A rewrite may also be needed per WP:NPOV. GrabUp - Talk 09:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. GrabUp - Talk 09:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Iran, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. Unfortunately all of Hasanreels's created articles are like this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete likely hoax created by blocked sockpuppet, Mccapra (talk) 06:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

List of aircraft of Turkey during World War II

List of aircraft of Turkey during World War II (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)

As Turkey hardly did anything during WW2 I don’t think this is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. "Equipment of X at Y time period" lists are rarely notable, and I don't believe this rises to the standard. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Okay, so the connection between Turkey, military aircraft, and WWII isn't as out there as you might think. But it's a small paragraph in a "Turkey in World War II article", not an original research-ey This shows how the Turkish Air Force would have been equipped throughout World War II list based off passing mentions in hobbyest websites listing countries that various models of planes were shipped to. The article cites one self-published source [12], which does actually deal with airplanes in Turkey during WWII. Instead, it deals with planes preserved in Turkey during World War II. And it makes it clear that this is not a subject of academic study, because the author thanks the readers for helping him crowd-source the list. It also contains an unattributed copy of part of our Military history of Turkey article, so it appears to technically be a copyright violation too. My WP:BEFORE has turned up nothing promising, but I do have to concede that my search is skewed by results related to the Battle of the Philippine Sea.

I could see an advantage of a "list of Turkish military airplanes" by decade style of list, for more directory-style purposes. if anybody feels like making one, and thinks this article would be useful for that, then the closer/deletion review can retroactively put me down as a merge. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Agree with the nom. Not important enough. Orientls (talk) 06:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Plunder of Murshidabad (1742)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Plunder of Murshidabad (1742)
• Articles for deletion/Plunder of Murshidabad (1742) (2nd nomination)

Plunder of Murshidabad (1742) (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)

• First of all, the article is written in the form of a fan-made story, attempting to villainize an entity (or perhaps show off? There are numerous instances in articles about Indian military history where users have included shocking or vulgar acts committed by militants).
• WP:CITEKILL has made source analysis more complex, but once unreliable sources were cleared, the analysis became much easier. The article clearly fails to meet WP:GNG, as well as old sources falling under WP:RAJ and WP:AGEMATTERS have widely been used (caused the reason for the put down of the last proposal, and i was on a break)

Analysis:

• The New Cambridge Modern History Vol. 7 (1713-63)* by Lindsay, J. O., Ed:

The book only mentions "Murshidabad" once, with the context found in the parent article on Maratha invasions of Bengal.

• The same applies to *The Marathas - Cambridge History of India (Vol. 2, Part 4)* by Stewart Gordon;

It mentions the event alongside the "Maratha invasions of Bengal," which, indeed, should also be referenced here. A separate article is not warranted for this event, as it is a minor occurrence within a larger conflict—specifically, a plunder. Such events do not meet the minimum notability standards. In fact, an entire page from a reliable source is missing in this case. Additionally, the use of a military conflict infobox is unnecessary here, as it follows the same problematic pattern seen with articles like "Battle of X" or "X-Y Wars" in Indian military history. This approach has caused numerous issues. In conclusion, the article fails to meet notability standards and is poorly written. The content could easily be integrated into the parent article instead. Imperial^[AFCND] 14:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Bangladesh, and India. Imperial^[AFCND] 14:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• note to the closer: Please review the background of the voters as meatpuppetry is common among these topic areas.-Imperial^[AFCND] 14:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. The pillaging of an undefended city doesn't warrant an article and cannot be described as a "Maratha victory" (as claimed in the infobox). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

2024 North Korean Trash Balloon Incident

2024 North Korean Trash Balloon Incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

An article for the same topic was previously deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean excrement balloon incident. I don't think this current new article adds much more to the discussion than what is already on Balloon propaganda campaigns in Korea. The current article title also isn't great; should be sentence case as it isn't a proper noun, and this isn't a single incident: it is a series of incidents. seefooddiet (talk) 02:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, North Korea, and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Merge: into the same balloon propaganda article as was decided in the last AfD, this is basically a reworded article that we already decided to !merge back in May. It appears to be a continuation of the same event, if it was not notable then, I don't see that much extra coverage that would give us a !keep this time. Oaktree b (talk) 02:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Merge into Balloon propaganda campaigns in Korea, no need for this separate page. Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. APK hi :-) (talk) 10:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Merge into Balloon propaganda campaigns in Korea. — Maile (talk) 00:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Merge I created the new article, and I'm happy to merge my content into the original content since I didn't know about it. I'd like my article to be merged directly with Balloon propaganda campaigns in Korea.Lindsay Kim (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

2024 Srinagar attack

2024 Srinagar attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. I'm only seeing routine coverage, and no in-depth coverage. Not sure if this is going to have any lasting effect or receive any more coverage than what's already there. --Ratekreel (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. --Ratekreel (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• I'd also like to note that the title of this article is misleading. It should have been named somthing like 2024 Khanyar/Srinagar gunfight/encounter, given it was not an attack. --Ratekreel (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Terrorism. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Solomon Etefa

Solomon Etefa (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 tried draftifying the article, but it was moved back. I tried a WP:BEFORE search, but it failed. The sources in the article aren't quite formatted correctly. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 12:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Ethiopia. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 12:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

It is correct there is no problem with the citation or reference keep it up Pit09 (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Draftify: until such a time as the references are properly formatted, inline, and are references to actual sources not just the name of a newspaper. -- D'n'B-t -- 13:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. All that matters is whether the topic is notable, and he clearly is. Senior general and meets WP:GNG. Terrible article, but AfD is not cleanup. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Necrothesp I recognize that AfD is not cleanup, however WP:DRAFTIFY and peoples persistence in moving "their" article back into mainspace prevented me from unilaterally draftifying again. There really does need to be a space for discussing articles that technically shouldn't be unilaterally draftified per WP:DRAFTIFY but perhaps they ought to be draftified, anyways...but there isn't. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 13:17, 9 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)

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)

Zakir Ali Zaidi

Zakir Ali Zaidi (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 bio clearly fails GNG, but instead of taking it to AFD, I draftified it to give the creator a chance to get it approved through AFC review. However, they reverted my draftification, leaving me no choice but to take it to AFD. Those arguing to keep it based on WP:ANYBIO #1 should also understand that meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. It lacks direct and in-depth coverage in secondary sources. Cited sources quote text like "His Namaze Janaza will be offered today (Wednesday) at 14:30 hrs at Imambargah Jamia Sadiq at G-9/2 (Near Karachi Company) Islamabad. He will be buried in Karachi," which suggests that this is a paid obituary. WP:SOLDIER has been deprecated, and the awards he received are military-specific and are awarded based on the person's rank rather than their accomplishments. Only civilian awards are prestigious, so this bio fails WP:ANYBIO as well. President is different from vice chancellor so fails WP:NACADEMIC as well. 202.59.12.208 (talk) 13:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC) — 202.59.12.208 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Better to login to your account (not a new user who immediately finds AfD)/ no contributions outside this AfD) than presenting your biased opinions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

TheBirdsShedTears, While I personally don’t appreciate votes by IPs in AFDs, even when they share the same opinion as mine, but this vote do raise valid concerns that you need to counter if you want to keep this BLP. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Saqib: BLP? TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

TheBirdsShedTears, My mistake—I meant to say "bio". — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

No problem! I make unintentional mistakes too. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment The IP is referring to President (corporate title) which is completely different from Chancellor (education) – President (education). The subject in question served as the chancellor i.e President (education). If you don't know the differences, please don't waste time of other AfD participants. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
  • TheBirdsShedTears, I get that university presidents are usually seen as notable, but this guy's background as a soldier rather than an academic makes it a bit questionable. No? Just because he was president of a military university doesn’t mean he’s made any significant academic contributions. PS. I am glad you took the IP to task! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

    I fear that the sources and article may not have been fully reviewed. The subject also held a notable role at the Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad, which I feel adds to his notability. From what I understand, my challenge to the draftification may have been taken personally, which could be why it went to AfD without a neutral or closer review. I'm not against taking this article to AfD; my concern is about questionable review. It TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

    It seems that when you nominate an article for AfD, there is often strong advocacy against retention, which may come across as challenging the "keep" votes, and influencing other editors, potentially harming WP:CON. (see this, this, this, this, this, and this.........) I'm a bit concerned that this approach might be affecting the neutrality of discussions. The best practice is to review the article and the provided sources very closely, then describe the issue at the time of AfD nomination and let the community decide the fate of AfDed articles. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

    TheBirdsShedTears, I think the AGF factor is missing here and I believe this discussion is going off track. Instead of focusing on the subject, you're discussing me and my behavior in this AFD, which isn't the right forum for that. But since you asked, let me clarify: when someone makes a WP:ATA or when someone with a questionable editing history - yes, I said questionable editing history - !votes to change the outcome of an AFD, I feel it’s necessary to counter them. That’s not a bad thing, is it? That said, if you believe this AFD is unjustified, you still have time to explain why it should be kept. If it's based on GNG, please provide links to coverage that establish WP:N. If it falls under some SNG, please clarify that. I hope it’s not NACADEMIC, as I’ve raised concerns about that. And being the Head of the Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad doesn’t inherently make someone WP:N either; they still need to meet some criteria. You must know better, don’t you? PS. this might be my last comment on this AFD to allow you and others to decide its fate. --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Merge to XII Corps (Pakistan). Zaidi does not appear to have commanded in combat, which might attract notable sources; and is not on the unbroken commander's list at II Corps (Pakistan). He is on the list for commanding XII Corps from May 1987 to Aug 1989 (unsourced, however). A note could be added to the XII Corps page to say that in 1989 Zaidi took over the senior military academic staff post, and then died 2020. That would allow that mention to be used as a seed for any future addition of reliable sources to recreate the article. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. There’s one reliable source, which isn’t enough for significant coverage. I won’t oppose a redirect. Bearian (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: I am a bit puzzled by this AfD. The subject served as a president of the National Defence University, Pakistan. President in this case is referring to the highest-ranking officer within the academic administration of a university. WP:NPROF criterion 6 says that The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. This unarguably tells us that this subject is clearly notable under WP:NACADEMIC. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Being president of NDU doesn't make the person notable. It should have coverage in multiple secondary sources not just one primary source. Fails GNG and WP:BASIC is not satisfied. Wikibear47 (talk) 07:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Lycée naval

Lycée naval (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 were no refs on the page until I added one earlier. On further reflection I am not seeing anything else and I don't think this is sufficient to meet the GNG. fr.wiki is of no real help as the only substantive sources there are from the French government. JMWt (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and France. JMWt (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Schools. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment there is also the unsourced Brest Naval Training Centre and the barely-sourced École navale and École de maistrance. Probably sourcing is too thin for individual articles but some merger would be preferable to deletion. Mccapra (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to Brest Naval Training Centre, or possibly merge both to Brest Arsenal. I don't see sufficient coverage about this high school; my French isn't good enough to determine if there is sufficient coverage of the training center. For the Arsenal itself, the current government sources (and 200 years of historical records) are enough, even though the sourcing in that article is sub-par. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to Brest Naval Training Centre or else keep. - This one is made tricky by my lack of access to possible sources, because at least one of the sources I found seems quite confusing, but would tend to confirm notability. I am leaning keep, but coming down on the side of Merge because French wikipedia tells us that Brest Naval Training Centre is located the buildings of the former Naval school, and now hosts two training schools (écoles de formation) and this lycée. That is, the Naval training centre is a combined naval training and education facility that would be a good home for this article content, and could be expanded. However, WP:MADRENAME is required. This page should correctly be either Lycée naval de Brest or its English name Brest naval high school. Those would be how this is searched for, and the current name would make a poor redirect.
  Now as to why I would be leaning keep, and think this should be at least a merge, I have found extensive mentions, although, without full access to the books, have not proven SIGCOV. Some examples:

• Le Monde de l'éducation (in French). S.A.R.L. Le Monde. 1994. - Le Monde is a French paper of record and these mentions are in a published collection. I cannot verify the indpendence of these mentions, as they are in an educational supplement, but likely are independent.
• Gautier, Sébastien (13 July 2016). Une si belle journée (in French). Les Éditions du Net. ISBN 978-2-312-04548-1. - Mentions in a book about diving.
• Bouvier, Claudia (23 March 2022). Codename Corvus Thriller: Band 1 Die Iskander - Verschwörung (in German). tredition. ISBN 978-3-347-47148-1. - Mentions in a German work of fiction.
• Lormier, Dominique (4 May 2016). Histoires extraordinaires de la Seconde Guerre mondiale (in French). Cherche Midi. ISBN 978-2-7491-4084-1. - This book is about extraordinary :stories from the Second World War. It mentions this school, which would be very signiifcant, except it is apparently impossible - the school was started in 1968. I do not have the book, and I cannot see enough of the preview to unravel this. It may be, however, that the prior school is what is meant.

In addition to these there are very many news articles and other links (lots of books that are self published - so I ignored those). But it is a particular school in a historic building, one of just a few such schools and hosted in a nationally significant naval training centre. It should be kept in some form. But per WP:PAGEDECIDE, I think the merge is appropriate (at least unless and until enough information is found for a spinout). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like we have "don't delete", looking for more sources (to take us to keep) or for confirmation that merge is the way to go at this point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:40, 7 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