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

Tanori's Raid

Tanori's Raid (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:MILNG. Most of the sources fall under WP:PRIMARY & WP:AGE MATTERS, maybe merging this event in Refugio Tánori could have been better but a standalone article is not warranted for this. Garudam ^Talk! 10:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, France, Latin America, Mexico, United States of America, Arizona, and North America. Garudam ^Talk! 10:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete or merge relevant information to the article suggested by nom. Intothatdarkness 13:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Another inappropriate close paraphrase of the source, which does not even present this as a specific notable event needing its own page rather than part of a longer narrative. Don't merge the close paraphrase. Reywas92^Talk 15:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Skirmish at Grass Valley

Skirmish at Grass Valley (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:MILNG. Most of the sources fall under WP:PRIMARY & WP:AGE MATTERS. Nothing significant or even relevant context found in the Bancroft. Garudam ^Talk! 09:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, United States of America, Arizona, California, and North America. Garudam ^Talk! 09:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete As with other articles, much of this information is already in the related unit articles. If it should actually be there is another question, as this event isn't especially notable on its own. Intothatdarkness 13:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete At least this constructed title isn't bolded in the lead, but there's no indication this event is notable enough to warrant an article when there is no modern historical coverage as a significant event, only contemporary news. Reywas92^Talk 15:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Magdalena Affair

Magdalena Affair (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)

"Magdalena Affair" is a hallucinatory title not used by sources/historians. The entire article is a WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE of the one accessible link; the other two primary news sources are simply copied from the first source and certainly not actually consulted for writing this. Notability is not established for this event to justify a standalone article. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Battle of City of Rocks. Reywas92^Talk 05:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Yet another OR mess from the initial contributor of article. Fails WP:MILNG and WP:SIGCOV Garudam ^Talk! 09:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Much of the information is also repeated (almost verbatim) in unit articles related to this one. Intothatdarkness 12:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Sulphur Springs

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

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

"Battle of Sulphur Springs" is a made-up title not used by the source. The entire article is a WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE of the one accessible link; the other primary news source is simply copied from the first source and certainly not actually consulted for writing this. Notability is not established for this event to justify a standalone article. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Battle of City of Rocks. Reywas92^Talk 05:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Arizona. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Full of OR mess. Garudam ^Talk! 09:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Intothatdarkness 12:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The Battle of City of Rocks

The Battle of City of Rocks (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 establishment of notability. ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Idaho, and Utah. ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: Fails WP:MILNG. The only source cited falls under WP:PRIMARY and WP:AGE MATTERS, this should not have been in the mainspace to begin with. Garudam ^Talk! 22:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete for failing nearly every criteria in WP:NEVENTS: lasting events, geographical scope, duration of coverage, diversity of sources. One newspaper article isn't going to get the job done. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - nothing in Josephy's The Civil War in the American West or Cutrer's Theater of a Separate War. I turned up a passing mention in an 1865 government report. Nothing that shows evidence of notability here. Hog Farm _Talk 01:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, and this user has a history of adding what is essentially trivia to articles about California in the Civil War taken almost exclusively from contemporary newspaper accounts. This article is no exception. Intothatdarkness 02:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete and admonishment to the creator User:Tablelegs6. "Battle of City of Rocks" yields zero results on Google/Books/News. Beyond a single primary source of an 1862 newspaper article being insufficient to base an article on, it's wildly inappropriate to just make names up as if this is an actual title given by historians. That does not appear to be the case and "battle" is not in the source. Is there any other coverage of this event? What is the historical significance? City of Rocks National Reserve#History could certainly use expansion with sources like [1], but standalone articles on events covered in one contemporaneous newspaper article is not what we need. A second admonishment for the article being a WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE of the primary source, for example the source says "...which gave the travelers the impression that they were bringing to them beef. In a short time however, other Indians were seen coming out in all directions, mounted and on foot. Between thirty and forty Indians, mounted on fine large horses, very shortly after came dashing down upon them and commenced firing" and the article says "which gave them the impression that they were bringing some beef. As that was happening other Natives were seen coming out in all directions, some on horses others on foot. Between 30-40 Indians mounted on horses and rushed the men then opened fire." Even if this is out of copyright, it's not appropriate to copy and paste one news report and just make minor changes and call it an encyclopedia article. Reywas92^Talk 05:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I have also nominated the creator's similarly single-source-paraphrased articles with manufactured titles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magdalena Affair and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Sulphur Springs, may also do Tanori's Raid and Skirmish at Grass Valley in the morning. Reywas92^Talk 05:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

    The paraphrasing is a common issue with this author. I've been doing cleanup in many California Civil War unit articles centering on this very thing. Intothatdarkness 13:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

2024 Al-Mustariha massacre

2024 Al-Mustariha massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable massacre or air strike. One of the source (ANHA - Hawar News Agency) is linked to the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). ANHA is forbidden in Turkey because it's seen as a propaganda tool of SDF, therefore I have no idea about what exactly is written in the source. Other source (arabi21.com) don't talk about Al-Mustariha or even a kind of massacre commited by Turkish air force. I'm not sure can we create an artice about every air strike and can we name every air strike as a massacre. I found no reliable sources online. I think it fails WP:RS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If there is a real massacre, this page can be used: List of massacres during the Syrian civil war.--Sabri76'^talk 14:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment:

Comment As mentioned above, neither of the two listed sources describe the event in question. However, there are other sites online that do, such as here and here, but no major news agency has reported on it yet. --Leviavery (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned below, SOHR just make news of anouncement of SDF controlled Raqqa Governorate. Turkey has made lots of air strikes and some of them might kill some civillians but I mean we need more reliable sources that air strike is a massacre. SDF/PYD controlled news agency ANFA try to create a perception that Turkish Air Force deliberately bombed a civillian house for order to ensure the emigration of the people. We're sure there were many airstrike and some soldiers and civillians are killer but we're not sure is this a massacre or an ordinary air strike. SDF-PYD don't want loose their areas because they want autonomy and independence if it's possible in the future. Therefore they create news like that for gaining inrernational support against Türkey. Therefore wikipedians should be suspicious about these type of claims and need more reliable sources. We have to ask what makes this event (air strike) special if we consider last bloody 10 years of Syrian Civil War?--Sabri76'^talk 20:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree ANHA shouldn’t be used, it’s clearly not reliable considering the context, but SOHR is a reliable source. As other sources have started to emerge confirming the details, I don’t see a need to delete the article. Please keep WP:NPOV in mind, as both Turkish and Kurdish aligned sources have bias. Flalf^Talk 01:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Aleppo | Turkish drone kills 11 SDF fighters in eastern countryside - The Syrian Observatory For Human Rights

SOHR itself calls them to be fighters, though this article calls it massacre of civilians by the Turkish Armed Forces. AscendencyXXIV (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete:
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, Syria, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Support The whole article of such an important event only has two references, thus the mentioned sources lack overall credibility - there's no report from any respectable/well-known media agency. AscendencyXXIV (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Slight Keep SOHR is a reliable source, and while the coverage is limited as of now, this leads me to believe that there is more to come. Flalf^Talk 17:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

SOHR shared the anouncement of SDF-led Raqqa Governorate and it says "191 air strikes". If this is a massacre, how about other 190 air strikes and dead bodies? If it's a systematic air strike massacre, why there is no other news and why big city centres are not bombed? SOHR also says totally 20 civilians killed in air strikes besides 32 SDF soldiers and 3 Assad regime soldiers. Also massacre is so disputed concept in this civil war. For example in here civillians died besides soldiers and I've searched key word of "massacre". I've found that just SDF (YPG) asserted Turkey committed a massacre against civilians and the source belongs to SOHR. I think using only the SOHR source prevents the objectivity of the event. The event in the article is the killing of soldiers and civilians as a result of air strikes and I think that it is not necessary to open a separate article since it is not a sui generis event in this civil war.--Sabri76'^talk 17:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep (weak). Coverage in SOHR ([2]) and New Arab ([3]). Suggest a requested move for the title. Longhornsg (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep. The massacre occurred today, and we have two reliable sources reporting on it as mentioned above. It's also worth noting that the Arabic divisions of Sky News and The Independent have both covered this attack. Biases within Kurdish sources such as ANHA should be taken into account, but most Kurdish sources I've seen source SOHR instead of SDF. Jebiguess (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

 Question: All news are based on SOHR and SOHR based on Raqqa Governorate. No photographs or witnesses in the news. Even if we accept this event is real but still no one has answered these questions yet: Does the bombing of a building make it noteworthy? Should an article be created for it or should it be simply moved to page List of massacres during the Syrian civil war ? In List of massacres page, Turkey wasn't mentioned. Is this a new and only massacre from at the beginng of the Syria war? If 190 air strike kills SDF-YPG soldiers and one of them kills civillians, is this make a massacre? Are you sure that it is a massacre instead of an air strike? For examle we have this article: April 2017 Turkish airstrikes in Syria and Iraq. Also civillians killed in those air strikes. This article was created to show that Turkey only carries out air strike to massacre innocent civilians. However, this airstrike is only one of 191 airstrikes against the SDF-YPG, and how neutral is it to open an article for a building that was bombed intentionally or accidentally? Israel also killed 6 civillians in this air strike (2024 Homs airstrikes) Why this is not a massacre?--Sabri76'^talk 06:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• • Offer: (My offer is valid provided that there is a consensus that the article should remain) I've found Turkish-based English news and I can see the photos. Therefore, I propose to change the title of the article as 2024 Turkish airstrikes in Syria, because Turkey does not want an autonomous or independent PKK-affiliated structure to be established in northern Syria and therefore, it is highly possible that operations will continue and air strikes will increase. Thus, this article will be open to develop for further actions.--Sabri76'^talk 06:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Update: My opinion is this is not a noteworthy event for creating an article unlike air strikes in Syria. If you want to see real massacre about Turkish Air Force, Roboski massacre is most popular one and this was widely discussed in the Turkish media and parliament for many years. If you have a consensus about this event is a massacre you can mention in here: List of massacres during the Syrian civil war. However this article but there are no sources to prove that it was a massacre. However massive air strikes are a fact.--Sabri76'^talk 10:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

      I don’t understand your opposition. I’m not anti-Turkish or trying to push a narrative, as a Wikipedian I’m simply trying to encourage documentation of facts. There is now a significant amount of independent coverage (particularly in Arab language sources) and even of a Turkish source (as you provided). [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Perhaps there should additionally be made an article about the more general air strikes, but this refers to a specific event.

      
      

      Also as I mentioned earlier, please keep WP:NPOV in mind. I understand you are Turkish, but you should remember to consider your own biases, especially in sanctioned areas such as around Kurdish related topics. Flalf^Talk 16:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  @AscendencyXXIV:, @Flalf:, @Braganza: I'm convinced about reality of the event and this discussion can be closed with a consensus, but I still have doubts about the definition of massacre, I think it's about moving the title and it's not the topic of here. I do not have any bias on issues related to Kurds, but I see a lot of systematic Turkophobia in the English Wikipedia, which is supposed to be unbiased. There is such a high level of prejudice against Turks on wikipedia that I don't participate in discussions because of the risk of being labeled as a nationalist even by writing a sentence, but calling the Turkish Air Force as mass murderer because one of the 191 bombings led to the death of innocents doesn't sound neutral at all. If the creator of the article hadn't used the word "massacre" but said "air strike", this article wouldn't have attracted my attention. I have heard on the news that they've been carrying out air strikes in recent days, but massacre is a very big claim. I would like to invite you to the page to get your views on the topic related to the title, I apologize for keeping this place busy.--Sabri76'^talk 17:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Support Closing Discussion I think it’s fair to say the title is more in dispute than the article itself and that the deletion discussion should be closed in favor of a Request for Move.

  Flalf^Talk 18:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  support closure Braganza (talk) 07:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  • • I've changed my mind because I still cannot find the location of Al-Mustariha. News says it's in the west of Ayn Issa and north of Raqqa, but we just see Mustariha village in Idlib. Before this news, there's no information about Al-Mustariha village in Ayn Issa. This is so weird. Almost I've found a Mustariha in Hama Governorate. Why I cannot find the location? If we cannot find the location, could we presume that event took place in Ayn Issa Province? I've used VPN and I've seen ANHA news which says 12 dead people but SOHR says 11 civillians. I think one of 12 killed people is SDF-YPG soldier but ANHA didn't mention it because of ideological background of news agency. SOHR used the Raqqa Governorate's statement and it's normal ı think. However, it is very interesting why all the websites reporting the news only stick to the SOHR announcement and don't clarify the location of the village. There are photos, but not finding any information about the location of the village or any information about the village before the incident makes me suspicious. A few small opposition websites in Turkey, known to be close to the HDP, reported this news. No medium or large-scale news website, also known internationally, mentioned this incident. I am contributing to this page for the first time, but I would like to ask if this is normal. The level of media freedom in Turkey may be low and therefore some news may be ignored, but if it is serious enough to be covered, I ask why other large or medium-sized news agencies didn't report it. Don't misunderstand me, I don't claim bombings and deaths didn't occur.--Sabri76'^talk 23:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Ganja (1796)

Battle of Ganja (1796) (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)

Completely unsourced and was already draftified once. A WP:BEFORE only brings up other events of the Persian expedition of 1796, or other battles having happened in Ganja in other years, but nothing about this specific battle. This source provides an overview of the region during the time, and confirms the general situation in the year preceding the battle (with Erekle/Heraclius and Javad Khan respectively under Russian and Persian allegiance), but does not mention a battle taking place in Ganja in 1796. This excerpt from Azerbaijan's Presidential Library briefly mentions that Russia, not Georgia itself, occupied Ganja in 1796 (and links more sources, although they are all written in Azerbaijani). All in all, there doesn't seem to be enough sourcing to confirm that a battle between Georgia and Azerbaijan took place, let alone to verify WP:GNG. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Azerbaijan, and Georgia (country). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable, either OR or a hoax. Mccapra (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - at best OR, at worst a hoax. My searches turn up nothing on 1796 (at least in English). Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:V. No improvement on Draft:Battle of Ganja (1796) and barely any improvement on Draft:Battle of Ganja. If the creator believes this to be notable, they can work on this in draft and submit to WP:AfC once sources are found. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: per above, fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:MILNG. Garudam ^Talk! 19:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Belh

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

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. Created by a user known for poorly-sourced battle articles, with four out of eight creations already deleted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Afghanistan, and Mongolia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom. Fails WP:MILNG and nothing significant to be found upon searching "Battle of Belh". This could have been merged to Timur at best. Garudam ^Talk! 13:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable and either OR or a hoax. Mccapra (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Benedict Munro, Baron von Meikeldorf

Benedict Munro, Baron von Meikeldorf (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)

Unnotable 17th century english soldier. I was unable to find anything about him online. The sources in this article link to other Wikipedia articles and do not appear to be related to him at all. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Germany, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
• Question. As a baron, was he a member of some German state's ruler's council or the state's equivalent of the House of Lords? If so, that's automatic notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence of a "Baron von Meikeldorf" (I have tried a number of variant spellings) outside of the two family genealogies cited in this article. I would not consider them reliable for establishing the existence or significance of this person. Choess (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep, I have reformatted the reference to make them verifiable online. These references are reliable sources.QuintusPetillius (talk) 12:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - fascinating story, but even after trying different searches, I can’t find anything other than what little information is there. Bearian (talk) 03:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Pantodapoi

Pantodapoi (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)

Unreferenced stub gives a definition for "Pantodapoi" which appears to be original research as the main sources found online are product pages for "Pantodapoi Phalangite" miniatures made by a maker called "Xyston". Does not meet WP:GNG. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Toys, and Greece. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not expert enough with Greek military units to feel confident in voting, but I did check some typical reference sources, including Harper's Dictionary of Classical Antiquities and Pauly-Wissowa, neither of which has an entry for "pantodapoi". I also checked under "auxiles" or related headwords. A broad search of the classical materials at Perseus turned up the word with reference to a kind of sauce (perhaps I misunderstood) and in a couple of other places, but not with reference to soldiers. A Google search for "pantodapoi soldiers" turned up a set of circular-looking definitions, perhaps based on this article or wherever its definition came from in the first place.

I suspect that what has happened here is that the article's creator confused a description of some auxiliary soldiers with a name for their unit: pantodapoi phalangites means "miscellaneous soldiers (in a phalanx)", not "a particular type of soldiers (natives) making up a phalanx". But it would be nice to see if anyone with more expertise in Greek military history concurs with this. Not certain that the general notability guideline is what's relevant here; if the definition were correct, I think the topic would be notable. But if, as I believe, the article is the result of a misunderstanding, then it can be deleted as though it were a hoax (albeit an accidental one). P Aculeius (talk) 16:29, 7 December 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 keep. Consensus reached. Also, having been expanded from 2,600 to 8,600 bytes, it is nowhere near the article that was originally nominated. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Pave Spike

Pave Spike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article about an obsolete piece of military equipment which has no significant coverage and has had none for not far off 20 years. Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep subject obsolescence is not a valid reason for deletion. Mztourist (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep A Google Books search returns lots of useful references in books on this device, if you ignore the huge number of US government budget documents. It was used in combat in the Falklands and Gulf Wars. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  Are these not simple routine coverage of a piece of military equipment? Not the type of in-depth significant coverage required to pass on notability? Having a lot of insignificant coverage doesn't make something notable, nor does it being 'used in combat' either. Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - being obsolete is not an argument for deletion. Yes, the current article is a mess and needs better referencing - but those are not reasons to delete either. Distinctly notable piece of kit and the article can be expanded, there is no deadline. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  "Distinctly notable" is a non-sequitur. If it were distinctly notable, then it would have sources proving it's notability. Instead it's had none for near 20 years. Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  "It's had none for near 20 years" is not a good reason to delete the article. There is no deadline. Sources exist: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], and more. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Invalid deletion rationale. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopaedia of current topics. Once notable, always notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly notable, and an important weapons system in its day. Deletion is not justified or warranted. Intothatdarkness 15:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep - The technology being obsolete is irrelevant to subject notability. — Red XIV ^(talk) 07:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Per all of the above. Notability is not temporary. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:47, 11 December 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.

Peace efforts during World War II

Peace efforts 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)

Somehow, it seems like a synthetic topic—should we really have a terribly under-cited laundry list under this heading? Its items do not seem like they go together except superficially. Naturally, no connective sources are cited. Remsense ‥ 论 01:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep This is a valid and important article. If it requires improvement, the right thing to do is to fix it, not delete it. There is plenty of information available on this topic online! Valorthal77 (talk) 04:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not convinced it is valid, is the thing. Rather, I'm not convinced an article of this particular scope—one that includes both Swedish pacifists, American isolationists, and Rudolf Hess—is valid. Remsense ‥ 论 06:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per above. Bduke (talk) 05:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• I think it needs to be Draftified for now; the subject of 'attempts of the belligerents to come to some peace agreement during WW2' is not necessarily out of scope for Wikipedia, and it might be useful to have it all summarised in one place. But the current state of the article requires a lot of work to bring it up to standard, e.g. the lead reads like a fragment of an idea that's not mentioned elsewhere - rather than a summary, there are almost no in-line citations, and it's all worded like an essay with quite a few assertions in wiki-voice that need to be attributed to sources. The 'analysis' section, in particular needs immediate attention if the article does remain, 'analysis' is WP:OR almost by definition. JeffUK 14:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: essentially a list at the moment but does not meet WP:NLIST: as the nominator points out, the articles it claims as its scope have not been discussed as a set in RS. Thus, WP:SYNTH. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  How is it synthesis if the goal is to prevent war and resolve conflicts peacefully? It seems the request to delete is just because the topic is unwelcome. There’s even an article about World War I, which was less severe than this war! Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup Valorthal77 (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. This is not subject to NLIST; there's far too much text for NLIST to apply. This seems like a good place to bring various strands together in one spot, just like its World War I counterpart. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Battles of Ilidža

Battles of Ilidža (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)

Yet another non-notable minor action of the Bosnian War created by one of the editors who have been very busy in this space recently. The comprehensive two volume history of the war, Balkan Battlegrounds https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=jodpAAAAMAAJ&pg=GBS.PA346&hl=en_AU states only that street battles commenced on 22 April, and then with reference to this suburb of Sarajevo, "Over the next few days, Serb forces occupied all of Ilidza (at the northwestern end of the airport runway)". This isn't significant coverage, and doesn't even indicate there was fighting, let alone a major battle. The article body (less background, which is cited to a dead link I haven't tried to resurrect as yet to verify) is completely unsourced. Lacks SIGCOV and should be deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:GNG Mztourist (talk) 03:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Lacks SIGCOV. Intothatdarkness 14:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Sikh conquest of the Punjab

Sikh conquest of the Punjab (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)

Clearly a pseudo-historical article created by a blocked-sock, that should not have been in the mainspace to begin with. Fails WP:MILNG, nothing significant to be found related this event. Garudam ^Talk! 00:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, and Punjab. Garudam ^Talk! 00:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with the deletion nomination and the reasons for deletion...Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom. Pure nonsense. The entire article is based on one source alone.

Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, as it seems to be one line. Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Noorullah (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - a made up in one day event, bordered upon a mixup, inside of a soap box. Having one source is tantamount to original research. Looking at reliable sources online, the real takeover was in the 1830s, and even then is only mentioned in passing. Even assuming a good article could be created, this is a disaster. Bearian (talk) 05:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom and per Bearian explanation. RangersRus (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom.--Indian Agent (talk) 12:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Confederate Monument (Oxford, Mississippi)

Confederate Monument (Oxford, Mississippi) (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 to meet notability. Beyond a description of the monument and the fact that it was moved, there really is not significant coverage about the monument. These facts alone do not make this article suitable for inclusion. Jordano⁵³ 23:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Jordano⁵³ 23:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Jordano⁵³ 23:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Passes WP:GNG in that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources eg. [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Sources are there to pass WP:GNG and the article is standard for monuments; nominator is also a student at Ole Miss (publicly disclosed on their user page) and I don't want to outright say there's COI involved, but someone not involved with the school should be nominating this rather than a student for best practices. Nate • (chatter) 23:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  Best practice might also include WP:BEFORE. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:43, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, that too; if there are two proper sources coming into the article when you nominate it, I don't think those are the only two to exist as you've easily proven. Nate • (chatter) 14:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - per Hawkeye above. But also, even more so because these statutes stand as a reminder of the history of that era. I.E., take a look at all the categories at the bottom of George Armstrong Custer vs. Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. Early white settlers tried to eradicate native American tribes from the earth. History is not always pretty, and we should keep these articles etc. that illuminate the other side of what happened. — Maile (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep, sufficient secondary coverage. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep WP:GNG, WP:BEFORE Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history#What topics do we cover? "5. Military facilities and structures, such as fortifications, bases, test sites, and memorials" in addition to military units. A B-class article with 12 cited sources. Donner60 (talk) 08:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per sourcing found by Hawkeye7 Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per Hawkeye7 above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Jhala Manna

Jhala Manna (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 previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jhala Man Singh and recreated under a different title with sufficient differences that G4 speedy deletion was declined.

However, the recreated version still does not show that the subject passes WP:GNG or WP:NBIO.

• Most sources have one or a handful of passing or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the subject (A History of Rajasthan, A History of Mewar, Battle of Haldighati, Jhālā rājavaṃsa, Mewar Saga, Mewar & the Mughal Emperors, and Maharana Pratap: The Invincible Warrior.
• In addition to having trivial mentions, some sources are also considered of questionable reliability per WP:RAJ, such as Tod's Annals of Rajasthan
• One source is WP:SELFPUBLISH: Sacred Mysteries from vanity publisher by Notion Press.
• Chiefs and Leading Families in Rajputana has no mention of Jhala Man Singh/Man Singh Jhala/Jhala Bida/Jhala Manna/Jhala Sardar or any other configuration of his names.
• Another "source" is a poem.
• The final source is an e-commerce site.

No evidence of WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources is found in a WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Still not seeing notability, sources are as explained above, not much for showing notability. I still don't find any sources we can sue. Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article previously at AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Notable person. Mentioned in many sources. He played a significant role in the Battle of Haldighati. Lordo'Web (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

DELOSYS

DELOSYS (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)

Declined G11. Mildly promotional article on a Slovak fire-control system. Article only includes one source, which appears to be primary, and reliable sources are clearly lacking. No evidence that this warrants a standalone article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Konštrukta – Defence, the producer of this system, as an AtD. Agree that it doesn't warrant a standalone article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Products. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Conventional weapon

Conventional weapon (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:DICDEF and WP:GNG. Perhaps it could be redirected to and explained in weapon? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Law, Military, and Technology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: this is a sharply-distinct class of weapons, the subject of the treaties named in the article. As such the article is correctly about things, not the term used to name those things, as is proper for an encyclopedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  A WP:DICDEF does not have to be about a term. All it means is that the article is essentially a dictionary entry, as this one is when any unsourced original research is ignored. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Clearly notable. Intothatdarkness 12:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep a well-established term. This is something of a dictionary definition, but not enough to be deleted for that reason. A merge might be possible, but I don't think weapon would be the target. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  ...An article can certainly be deleted for being a dictionary definition. That's why WP:DICDEF exists. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Despite the sheer number of keep !votes, their arguments are not so clearly based on policy or guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. A basic google books and scholar search shows WP:SIGCOV. It's a widely used term with legal implications both domestically and internationally. I can't imagine any serious WP:BEFORE was done, because I am seeing some obvious avenues for article development in google scholar and google books as it relates to international law and armaments agreements in relation to conventional weapons. The possibilities for expanding this are there, and we are not under any time limit to do so.4meter4 (talk) 06:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  As User:Doczilla stated, please demonstrate this SIGCOV instead of just claiming it is there. The last 3 Keep !voters said the same thing and this is just repeating the point that has already been called insufficient without any evidence that the AfD was poorly conducted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  Google Scholar alone generates over 5000 hits, with journals ranging from Journal of Cold War Studies to Defence Science Journal and a number of scholarly monographs as well. Google Books returns another 19000, although the relevance of some of those is likely lower. Given the role the distinction between conventional and non-conventional weapons (nuclear and chemical in particular) played in arms control discussions and treaties in the 1970s and 1980s (to give just one example) it should be patently obvious this is a significant topic. Intothatdarkness 13:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  A widely used term with many hits does not mean it is article worthy. WP:GHITS is relevant here. While "nuclear weapon" is obviously notable, "conventional weapon" encompasses a wide and vague umbrella of weapons that is duplicated by other articles. The arms treaties in which it is used of course can have their own page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, per all above. BD2412 T 16:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep, another agreement with all of the above. Donner60 (talk) 08:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:DICDEF: unlike a dictionary definition, where you would find discussion of the word's usage and history, this encyclopedic article instead discusses the scope, history, mechanics, and status of the concept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Raids inside the Soviet Union during the Soviet–Afghan War

Raids inside the Soviet Union during the Soviet–Afghan 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)

An unwarranted WP:SPLIT of the Soviet–Afghan War, clearly a Pov ridden article and glorification of measly notable Pakistani raids in Soviet Afghan. Garudam ^Talk! 00:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Russia, Ukraine, and United States of America. Garudam ^Talk! 00:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Its not a Split and these raids aren't "measley notable" in that it involved the forces of four different states infiltrating into the territory of a global superpower. Waleed (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: I think that the article is notable on its own. WP:SPLIT is justified for significant battles of the Soviet-Afghan war. Wikibear47 (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  This could be merged at best. Otherwise, I don't see a reason why this article should exist in the mainspace when the parent article itself does not cover this topic or lacks sources, even if it does. Garudam ^Talk! 19:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: pure violation of WP:SYNTH. The topic is not notable and the article itself appears to be pushing a POV. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep The article has standalone notability of its own established through significant coverage and a necessary split from Soviet-Afghan war article. Muneebll (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

  The topic is not even notable for its parent article and lacks citations, clearly it does not pass GNG & SIGCOV. Garudam ^Talk! 14:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Offensive weapon

Offensive weapon (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:INDISCRIMINATE, no context for why this legal term is encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not purely a legal reference and this article just cites laws and legal decisions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, Social science, and Technology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete: topic does not seem notable at all outside of the legal documents. Noah ^💬 18:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

KEEP: Of course it is notable - an offensive weapon may not be a term where you or the proposer are from, but it is a clearly defined element of law that has been around for decades. I have no idea why the proposer decided to find this article doesn't meet WP eligibility criteria after the article being around for 17 years, but this is notable enough that it does need its own article. Seeing as someone from the USA and the proposer, from the Philippines, has an issue with this, then perhaps the best course of action should be to create a page 'Offensive Weapon in English/Welsh Law' like we have for many UK policing or general criminal law related articles. Deleting it outright is unnecessary. Apeholder (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is saying Wikipedia should be purely a legal reference, but this legal term is ubiquitous in the law of some European countries and has a social impact, that it should be included. The article also does not "simply cite laws and legal decisions", Why not just add a 'needs expansion' tag to this page, so users can see why the article is there with a good lede perhaps? Why call for the deletion of it outright? Apeholder (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

WHY was it nominated for deletion? So far, most of its sources are WP:PRIMARY. This is insufficient to pass GNG, while failing INDISCRIMINATE as well. You have not offered up actual sources to disprove this assertion. Rather than being angry at the nominator, proving them indisputably wrong with reliable secondary sources is a better idea when it comes to saving an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, why didn't you add 'better sources needed' instead of nominating the article for deletion? Why not improve the article or at least tag it so it can be improved? Why not rename it as a specific article about English/Welsh law like we have already on WP? To delete it outright is a very strange request. Meanwhile, I have added 2 secondary sources to the article, so your deletion request should now be reconsidered Apeholder (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment the coverage of the term's usage in English law is wildly excessive under any title. Ignoring that content, this feels more like a disambiguation page between different definitions of the term rather than one specific concept. Maybe converting this to a DAB page? Walsh90210 (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  Unless you can specify what requires disambiguation, this seems like a "let the search function do its job" sort of situation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Operation Čapljina

Operation Čapljina (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 "Flow of the operation" section of this article, which concerns the actual subject of this article, is unsourced. The comprehensive CIA history of the Balkan conflicts of the 90s, Balkan Battlegrounds mentions this operation only in passing, in fact in a footnote, not even in the body text. Another article of dubious notability created by new accounts that have popped up in the last few months. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 28 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) 09:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Another poorly sourced page by its creator. Mztourist (talk) 10:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Dubious topic, but a quorum would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Branko Pantelić

Branko Pantelić (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:BIO as subject has no notability, no WP:ANYBIO pass and lacks WP:RS. Seems like WP:NOTMEMORIAL breach. Mztourist (talk) 08:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 08:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 08:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
• DeleteRedirect to Garda Panteri, non-notable field rank officer, lacks RS, smacks of MEMORIAL. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Modified my delete to redirect per The Bushranger. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• Weak keepRedirect - Recipients of high-level awards are generally considered notable, the question is whether the second rank of the Order of Karađorđe Star of Republika Srpska, which he appears to have received, passes that bar, or only the highest rank. If it doesn't pass, then redirect to Garda Panteri, the unit he commanded that was renamed in his honor after his death. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• Comment IMHO, the Order of Karađorđe Star of Republika Srpska is a fourth level sub-national award, and in any case, this is a lower grade of the award. As far as RS awards are concerned, only the Order of the Republika Srpska (awarded to Ratko Mladić) and maybe the Order of Nemanjići which is specifically for prominent military actions, would even be close to meeting the "high-level awards" notability bar for soldiers. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks - looks like a Redirect then. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:51, 6 December 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. Garudam ^Talk! 10:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC) 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. Garudam ^Talk! 10:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC) 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. Garudam ^Talk! 10:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC) 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. Garudam ^Talk! 10:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC) 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. Garudam ^Talk! 10:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC) 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. Garudam ^Talk! 10:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC) 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of back and forth, but very few participants. Additional opinions would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:17, 8 December 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)
• Delete: Not opposed to merge to Invasion of France (1795) (although separately I feel that is a strange title, but AfD is not the venue for that discussion). The order of battle does not seem to add much useful information to the main article, is only linked to by the main article (and List of orders of battle). Lastly, the sources used seem to be histories of individual regiments or military units, not commentaries on the order of battle as a whole. Shazback (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
• Courtesy ping to Vicedomino and voorts as they participated in the merge discussion. Shazback (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: My views have changed since proposing the merge. First, there appears to be some community consensus that order of battle lists are encyclopedic, given that there are dozens listed at List of orders of battle. Indeed, some, such as the Battle of Long Island order of battle, are featured lists. Second, I think order of battle lists usually meet WP:CSC #3 since they are "[s]hort, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group", are usually "reasonably short (less than 32 KB)", and "could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers". Orders of battle are interesting to people who are researching military history and they can be useful for navigation. This one could use more wikilinks, if possible, but selective ILLs could also be added. To respond to the nom, this article is referenced, albeit not with inline citations, which is all that WP:N requires. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again before considering a No consensus closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 7 December 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)

• Comment. As I see it the current list can't stand as it is but not for notability reasons. South Korea did not exist until 1948, so if we are going to have a list with this title, the earliest war should begin in 1948. However, if we are going to include wars extending back in time in that geographic area than that topic is better covered at List of wars involving Korea. So I would support a Keep if the list does not include content before 1948 or a redirect to List of wars involving Korea#South Korea. Best.4meter4 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 10:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep the List of wars involving South Korea and Reestablish the List of wars involving North Korea. Those two are the modern countries and disserve their own articles. The List of wars involving Korea article should have the wars that occurred before the 1945 division of Korea. Dash9Z (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 02:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment: Several participants of the previous AfD, as well as new participants, have indicated that they are surprised by the previous AfD's outcome, and do not think it serves as a good precedent for this one. That undermines my rationale.

As nom, moreover, I am open to the alternative proposal of three separate lists:

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

This alt proposal appears to enjoy a majority right now. The inclusion of the year 1948 in the title of all three separate lists also appears to enjoy some support, in order to prevent duplication (WP:REDUNDANTFORKs) and WP:OR by implying that North Korea and South Korea have already existed for hundreds of years. Even though the ROK and DPRK do not diplomatically recognise each other, the de facto reality is that Korea ceased to be a unified state in or around 1948, and has split in two, a situation which has been consolidated since the 1953 ceasefire. It is probably best if our lists of wars involving Fooland reflect that, and the year 1948 will serve as the turning point in which the Korea list splits into North Korea and South Korea. NLeeuw (talk) 06:51, 7 December 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