Shortcuts

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. and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Military|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Military. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

Military and combat

United States complicity in Israeli war crimes in the Gaza war

United States complicity in Israeli war crimes in the Gaza 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)

Essentially a WP:POVFORK of United States support for Israel in the Gaza war. The media coverage and military support sections are duplicative of their parent articles. The "context" section is duplicative of Gaza genocide. Meanwhile, the "reactions" section is a disparate grouping of opinions which are better covered in United States support for Israel in the Gaza war#Backlash to US support. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naval History

Naval History (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)

Prodded with the following rationale: "No indication that this magazine is notable simply for existing. Relic of 2005 Wikipedia when notability was not a significant concern." Deprodded with the rationale "In my opinion, this is a very respected publication in the industry and has been cited by other sources." — Anonymous 19:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gajre ambush (Kosovo War)

Gajre ambush (Kosovo War) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An ambush where a policeman was killed. Sadly, common thing to happen during a war.

Doesn't meet WP:GNG besides passing news. Griboski (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph DiBella

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

Does not appear to be notable / WP:BLP1E for the coast guard rescue.

As an aside, the article was initially written by a blocked sock (I'm not sure what for other than socking), and then subsequently edited by the subject of the article itself. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shivaji's Southern Campaign

Shivaji's Southern Campaign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Extremely problematic article created by a sock. Source-text integrity is non-existent: either the cited sources do not verify the text, or they are closely paraphrased. LLMs may also have been used.

WP:TNT seems the best course of action, with a redirect to Shivaji#Conquest in southern India as a WP:ATD. (A previous WP:G5 request from ImperialAficionado was declined because of intervening edits.) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANSER

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

This is an article on a particularly important company, however, it has languished for eight years with only two marginal sources, a situation faced by many B2B and B2G firms. Unfortunately, a thorough WP:BEFORE search fails to find anything that could redeem it, however, this may be frustrated a bit by the non-unique name. I would particularly welcome anyone who can salvage this article and will happily withdraw this nomination if someone can but, I'm afraid, from where I'm sitting right now -- having exhausted a variety of avenues -- deletion is the only realistic outcome. Fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning keep, or move to draft. I was able to find a reasonable tertiary source (talking more about the president of the entity than the entity itself, but still supporting its history and notability) without too much difficulty on Newspapers.com, which returns enough hits to suggest that sufficient sourcing exists. BD2412 T 17:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest empires and polities on Indian subcontinent

List of largest empires and polities on Indian subcontinent (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:OR and WP:CFORK. No inclusion criteria for Indian(?) empires and polities (original research). List of largest empires also has an identical topic of greater quality. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 02:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Purple Haze

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

The article cites no sources (except a spam site in Armenian). Searching up the topic reveals nothing, so the topic's existence, let alone notability, can not be verified. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Polar Tempest

Operation Polar Tempest (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)

Like "Operation Purple Haze," the article cites no legitimate sources and a Google search gives no evidence for its existence. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 02:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keilyn DiStefano

Keilyn DiStefano (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)

Doesn't seem to be a notable member of the U.S. military. News coverage on her looks to be sparse. The cited profile of her published by the Virginia National Guard is a good start, but it's obviously not an independent source. The rank of major definitely distinguishes her from others serving in the Virginia militia (and this is documented in the Guard's profile of her), but the lack of any other significant coverage of her by independent outlets makes me doubt notability. Bridget (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conquests of Genghis Khan

Conquests of Genghis Khan (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)

WP:REDUNDANTFORK of multiple articles, especially Genghis Khan, which summarises all the information in this article, but also Mongol invasions and conquests and relevant subtopic articles.

This article appears to have been constructed by poorly summarising a number of other articles (probably using WP:LLMs) and then impreciely adding references, so that many do not verify the text. If anyone can figure out what's meant to be said in the first paragraph of #Siege of Bukhara, please let me know. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes WP:SCHOLARSHIP Yes Bloomsbury Publishing Yes ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Wiley Yes ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Frank McLynn -- a renowned biographer and historiographer. Yes ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Harvard University Press Yes ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Harvard University Press No ✘ No
Yes Yes Taylor & Francis Yes ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Edinburgh University Press Yes ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

No AI hallucinations [5]. No WP:CFORK, we could take a simple instance like Campaigns of Nader Shah. Mr.Hanes Talk 19:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A source analysis can be helpful when evaluating whether a topic is WP:NOTABLE, but that wasn't the objection raised here (and I don't think anybody seriously doubts the notability here). It would be more helpful to expand upon your other points. You say that there are no AI hallucinations, while the nomination points to a specific paragraph in the article deemed suspicious/incomprehensible—what do you think about that paragraph vis-à-vis being written by an LLM? You say that this is not an inappropriate content fork while comparing it to other articles, whereas the nomination says that the contents are covered better elsewhere—what is it you think keeps this from being redundant? Sometimes we go for covering comparatively narrow topics in stand-alone articles, and other times we cover them as part of a broader topic—what is your WP:PAGEDECIDE argument for covering this topic separately being the preferable course of action? TompaDompa (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Belgol

HMS Belgol (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 PROD. This seems like a run-of-the-mill tanker. My internet search (using the names "HMS Belgol" and "RFA Belgol") did not find that the subject meets the general notability guideline. There is one source not cited by the article that is worth mentioning, Historical RFA. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 07:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC) I am formally withdrawing this nomination. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 03:54, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving Bengal until 1971

List of wars involving Bengal until 1971 (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 WP:POVFORK & WP:POVSPLIT of List of wars involving Bangladesh, in order to evade the WP:NLIST and anachronistic issues [6]. Possibly a sock creation as well [7]. – Garuda Talk! 19:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - There was a suggestion in the talk page of the List of wars involving Bangladesh suggesting the creation for this page. I don't see how this is a POV Fork, there is no particular point of view within this page, everything is from a neutral point of view. Thorough research was put in to include every war and battle, no defeats or victories were kept hidden as to push a certain perspective. Longsword4 (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes a poor proposal by a blocked sock, which really means nothing. By POVFORK we infer: bypassing the problems of an article by creating a new one, without actually addressing the issues raised. In this case the issues are notability and anachronism. – Garuda Talk! 21:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel J. Hays

Samuel J. Hays (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)

Biography stub of a 19th century plantation owner. Only article that even vaguely contributes to WP:GNG or WP:BIO is an article from a 1944 newspaper article that discusses the subject in the context of local history, but I do not think this is enough to warrant an article. Other sourcing only mentions the subject in passing, or it the context of interactions with other more notable individuals (WP:NOTINHERITED). Article could be largely merged with Jackson, Tennessee. nf utvol (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. nf utvol (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm always undecided about articles dealing with people from over a hundred years ago; I've tended to look at them as if they were active in current times. Outside of the slavery parts (which are repugnant), this is a businessman and a soldier. I suppose being offered a genralship would show notability, but the rest of his military career doesn't seem impressive and the business activities are not notable. I'd be more inclined to keep the article if there was at least one book written about him. We simply seem to have bits and pieces brought together to make a somewhat interesting (but brief) biography here. This would perhaps be more suited for a local history project. Oaktree b (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm leaning delete at this point - the 1944 source is best but it may even be tertiary (someone reading their report to the paper.) That being said I'm loathe to - the problem is that notability isn't quite clear from the sources. Are there any better sources out there? SportingFlyer T·C 07:10, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if not independently notable as "local flunky of Andrew Jackson" or "drinking buddy of Jefferson Davis" could we turn him into a section of dad Robert Hays (Tennessee) or brother Stockley D. Hays? jengod (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That might be the most appropriate thing here. I see you've done a ton of work expanding the article since its nom, and I don't want to see that work and the info go to waste, but I'm still not sure it's actually hitting the bar for notability since so much of the reporting is, as you said, boozing it up with Davis while at West Point or being a politico for Jackson. The stuff in the Williams books could contribute to his own notability since there are a few paragraphs devoted to him, but I'm inclined to keep the AfD going to see what the broader community thinks. nf utvol (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The other option and really the reason this article exists is Wards of Andrew Jackson--he used these nephews in lieu of biological sons, and as per the Inman chapter on the first generation, they were all enabling one another within the endogamous kinship-network business model. We have A. J. Hutchings as a subsection of John Hutchings (slave trader) for the time being since he, like Hays, was pretty happy just being rich. meanwhile Andrew Jackson Jr. and the Indigenous members of the Andrew Jackson household are the subject of a lot of scholarship even though their accomplishments are not independently notable. IDK. I can just put it on findagrave if it doesn't have a place here LOL. jengod (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: article is vastly expanded since nomination, it is well researched and the figure was incredibly notable at their time. There is actually a few additional sources about Hays being a secretary to Jackson, his Mexican-American war service as well as to his property Bellwood that could be added here. Clearly a notable figure and its worth not scrubbing the site of well researched and accountable work on slavery just because the history is repulsive. It is this history is important to remember.Nayyn (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you share the sources about him being a secretary to Jackson? And does that lend notability? Employment by a notable individual does not necessarily mean the employee is notable. See WP:NOTINHERITED.nf utvol (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Jhain

Capture of Jhain (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:GNG, None of the sources gives enough significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) of this event/conflict to establish Notability (WP:N). Moreover the article focuses more on the background and the aftermath as the article only mentions 2-3 lines about the actual conflict. Koshuri (グ) 19:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There are plenty of sources that significantly cover it. The article could be expanded though. [11] [12] [13] (pg 209) [14] (Page 221) [15] (pg 136) Noorullah (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 11:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Bayana

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

The article clearly fails WP:GNG, None of the cited sources provides WP:SIGCOV of this conflict. Koshuri (グ) 10:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 11:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samad Ali Changezi

Samad Ali Changezi (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)

Pakistan Air Force Flight lieutenant shot down and killed in dogfight with Indian Air Force. Posthumously received Pakistan's 3rd highest gallantry award. Minimal information about him other than his death. Fails WP:GNG Mztourist (talk) 09:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Nitin Mehta

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

The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR (or WP:NMODEL). Mostly all of the sources are from Generic Bylines, see WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The Article from ThePrint is a Press Release from ANI, while TOI is just a passing mention. The subject lacks WP:SIGCOV. Taabii (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Garuda Talk! 19:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vijayanagara Campaigns in Sri Lanka

Vijayanagara Campaigns in Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails WP:GNG and is full of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as none of the sources refers to any campaign name Vijayanagara Campaigns in Sri Lanka which lasted for 1386–1621 in the sources, the title itself is fabricated. Also, Most part of the article is written using AI. see Mr.Hanes Talk 14:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Using neural network language models on Wikipedia Check out this the notice board Lion of Ariana (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete - The topic has significant coverage of Vijayanagara's campaigns in Sri Lanka and fulfills GNG, and this article should not be deleted because the sources do not mention the title. Different reliable sources describe various campaigns led by Vijayanagara—which does not violate WP:OR.Dam222 🌋 (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As per Koshuri Sultan, The article contains fictional timeline and no sources described about the event specifically Dam222 🌋 (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've checked all of the cited sources, None of them provides significant coverage to this campaign. None of the sources mentions that this campaign lasted for “1386–1621”, it's clearly a product of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. If you have any reliable source which mentions that this campaign lasted for 1386–1621 (as mentioned in the article) and provides significant coverage then share it here. Mr.Hanes Talk 17:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Garuda Talk! 17:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli support for Hamas

Israeli support for Hamas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not a significat topic of study or coverage. Much of the article is synthetically composed of material from sources unrelated to the article topic—which is not itself a reason for deletion, rather for revision, but from my research it appears that this is a reflection of the lack of significant coverage of this topic. Any relevant material not already there can be merged into History of Hamas. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "reliable" is more of what I was going for. Edited accordingly. Display name 99 (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing that most of the articles with this as their primary topic are just characterizing Israel's earlier Hamas policy as favoring it against the PLO, and generally avoid using the language of "support". The fact that there's no academic source on the "Israeli support of Hamas" is telling. As an analogy, we wouldn't have an article for "Indian provocations of Pakistan", though there are many articles assessing Indian foreign policy as doing so—the information from those sources would belong on Wikipedia, but don't collectively suggest "Indian provocations of Pakistan" as a notable topic. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are enough citations from reliable sources over a long time span mentioning the topic (although not always using the exact word "support" - the article could be renamed something like "Role of the Israeli government in the rise to power to Hamas" or "Israeli enabling of Hamas," if it's necessary to avoid the word "support"). NHCLS (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a controversial subject, could we see a source analysis? Thanks, in advance.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mala Kladuša offensive

Mala Kladuša offensive (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 is essentially a duplicate of the Capture of Vrnograč article which has recently been improved to include all the fighting that led up to the capture of that town, including this town. There is insufficient material in reliable sources to justify two articles in any case. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A. C. Frieden

A. C. Frieden (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 have carried out WP:BEFORE on this previously unreferenced BLP about a writer, and have added three sources. One is the publisher's website, however, so not an independent source. The other two are both reviews in Kirkus. I haven't been able to find three good sources, and don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. I did find this in the Daily Herald through ProQuest, but it reads like a press release from the publisher. Tacyarg (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for authors. While the Kirkus reviews may not be considered strong independent sources per WP:NAUTHOR, additional evidence supports the subject’s notability. The author has been featured in multiple crime fiction podcasts, including *Spear-Talk* and *Second Sunday Books*, where he has been interviewed alongside other established thriller writers. Additionally, he has contributed articles to *Thrilleresque Magazine*, an independent literary publication recognized in the crime fiction community.
Furthermore, the author is one of the few Western writers to have visited and written about North Korea, a topic that has been central to two of his published works. His experiences in North Korea have been discussed in both *Spear-Talk* and *Second Sunday Books* podcasts, as well as in his referenced article in *Thrilleresque Magazine*.
I am continuing to search for independent sources, particularly given that the author has spoken on *espionage thriller* panels at *Bouchercon 2024* and *Bouchercon 2022*, one of the most recognized literary events in crime fiction. Given the subject’s multiple published works, ongoing media coverage, and contributions to the crime fiction genre, I request that the article be retained. 2601:241:8E00:87B:8159:B6BD:E466:6C67 (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Following my initial response, I have found and added additional independent sources related to the author's latest book, *Midnight in Delhi*, which has received multiple positive reviews in the U.S. and India. Notably, *Best Thriller Books*, one of the leading independent book reviewers in the thriller genre, has reviewed the novel. These new references further reinforce the subject’s ongoing recognition in the crime fiction community. I am continuing to search for more independent coverage to strengthen the article. 2601:241:8E00:87B:8159:B6BD:E466:6C67 (talk) 03:20, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appearances on podcasts and panels, an article that the subject authored, and an alumni interview can't be considered towards notability, as they are not independent sources. These two sources seem to just be publisher blurbs. The review in "Best Thriller Books" is a little closer, but it's an extremely short review on what seems to be a relatively obscure website. I don't think we're close to WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG yet. MCE89 (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Following my previous response, I have added multiple independent sources confirming the author's participation in major crime fiction literary events. Notably, A.C. Frieden has been a featured panelist at *Bouchercon 2018 (St. Petersburg)*, *Bouchercon 2019 (Dallas)*, and *Bouchercon 2024 (Nashville)*, with an upcoming panel scheduled for *Bouchercon 2025*. These conferences are widely recognized as some of the most prestigious gatherings in the crime fiction genre. Independent references from *CrimeReads*, *Lone Star Literary Life*, and *J.T. Ellison’s official website* confirm his participation, further supporting his standing in the field. These sources are **third-party, reliable, and independent of the subject**, meeting Wikipedia's WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR standards. Additionally, I am continuing to search for further independent sources, particularly reviews of Frieden's novels in established media outlets. Given the subject’s multiple published works, confirmed speaking engagements at industry-leading events, and coverage in respected literary publications, I request that the article be retained. 2601:241:8E00:87B:F8CE:427D:F4AB:EDC8 (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Garuda Talk! 00:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Both nom and MCE89 have provided significant evidence that the subject of this article lacks the widespread independent secondary coverage required by GNG. The article is also contains promotional material which looks like a WP:RESUME. Nearly the entire bibliography is composed of self-authored, self-published, or otherwise primary sources that are disqualified for consideration towards notability.  GuardianH  05:36, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Deletion. The assertion that the subject lacks widespread independent secondary coverage overlooks the significant credibility of Down & Out Books, a leading crime fiction publisher. Notably, Down & Out Books is the official publisher of the Bouchercon Anthology, the official annual publication of Bouchercon, the world's premier crime fiction conference. Additionally, Down & Out Books has published works by over 200 authors, including #1 New York Times bestselling author C.J. Box and Edgar Award-winning authors David Housewright and Naomi Hirahara, among others. The publisher’s association with such acclaimed writers underscores its legitimacy and prominence in the crime fiction community. Down & Out Books has published four of the subject’s works, including the most recent, which was published in both the U.S. and India in November 2024. This international distribution further demonstrates the subject’s professional recognition and reach.
    Dismissing the bibliography as "self-authored, self-published, or otherwise primary sources" misrepresents the nature of Down & Out Books. While it operates as an independent press, it is not a vanity or self-publishing operation. The publisher maintains a rigorous editorial selection process, professional production standards, and industry-wide distribution, aligning with reputable publishing practices.
    Given the publisher's prestige, its role in publishing multiple works by the subject, and the subject's international reach, the article meets WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR guidelines. Concerns regarding promotional language can be addressed through standard editorial improvements rather than deletion. 2601:241:8E00:87B:F5B2:D640:8893:3CB1 (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Patti

Battle of Patti (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)

Why is this even a battle? What significance does this battle give? It's just a Mughal victory of 10,000 versus five, Where is the notability or even significance at all of this? Noorullah (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced search for: 
"Qasim Khan's revolt"
In books/documents 
Google Books
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
refseek
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives
Free English newspaper archives
In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal
The Wikipedia Library

Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central
Internet Archive
BASE  · Persée

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
  • Note: Page was vandalized by IPs and I added the best suitable changes back from an old revision. RangersRus (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • That doesn't change a thing. It's not the figures. Its the description of this as a battle of Patti at all, when the sources, including Hari Ram Gupta the first one cited, are talking about Qasim Khan's rebellion. Most sources outright label it that way, in titles or in marginal summaries. (See, for example, the margin of Chhabra, G. S. (1968). Advanced History of the Punjab: Guru and post-Guru period upto Ranjit Singh. Vol. 1. New Academic Publishing. p. 400. LCCN 70913973. OL 5746881M. Qasim Khan's revolt.)

      That version of Gupta's History cited doesn't, choosing a tabloid-esque section title, but begins the account with "Bhikari Khan's rebellion was followed by that of Qasim Khan, a Turk, […]". Gupta's 1944, 1952, and 1978 editions of History of the Sikhs start the very same account with the section title "Qasim Khan's Rebellion, C. March 1754". It'a also how xyr earlier Later Mughal History Of The Panjab at the Internet Archive reads.

      It turns out that the version of Gupta cited here is a posthumous edition from 2007, from "Munshiram Manohai lal Publishers Pvt. Ltd." who appear to have sensationalized Gupta's original text. That is still no excuse for writing this as a "battle of", though, when the prose below the title is largely the same and describes a failed revolt right down to its ignominious end: "The same day they cut off his tent ropes, dragged him to the Begam who confined him within her palace enclosure and kept him under strict guard.".

      Uncle G (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Garuda Talk! 20:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Annagudi

Battle of Annagudi (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)

Not a single mention of 'Annagudi' [20] in the sources, let alone having a conflict around this. Another poorly cited source which doesn't have pages and relies on 2 lines of mentions in footnotes of the book [21], doesn't give confidence that this event pass WP:SIGCOV & WP:GNG. Koshuri (グ) 15:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep The proposer couldn't find "Annagudi" in the first source because the place is no longer known as Annagudi. The place is represented in the source as Kumbakonam[22]. The article indeed needs to get a fresh work, but not ready for deletion. One of the major reason for me to oppose the deletion is, it is a named battle, with much significance in the Second Anglo-Mysore War. The event is called by the name "Battle of Annagudi" by Spencer C. Tucker[23] (p-955), C. Hayavadana Rao [24] p-1317), and Narendra Krishna Sonna [25] (p-219). What makes it more notable is, it was the battle where Sir John Braithwaite, 1st Baronet got captured and imprisoned for 2 years. We get a lot of sources covering the event, eg:[26], [27], [28], [29]... Many Early British records are too available mentioning this conflict, which itself describe its importance.--Imperial[AFCND] 15:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if it's named as 'Kumbakonam' I still found no mentions of the event besides in the appendix [30] which gives no insights of the 'battle'. This is inaccessible, even searching through sort method I found no more than 3 lines of coverage. C. Hayavadana Rao was a British official and his work by default falls into WP:RAJ and most of the last sources are also either old or Raj ones, which left us only two sources above which doesn't have enough significant coverage to have this topic its own article. Koshuri (グ) 15:49, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find any mentions in some of the sources, and the ones that do mention it, only do so briefly.[1][2] Therefore this subject isn't notable enough for a standalone article. AlvaKedak (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hazlitt, William (2007). New Writings of William Hazlitt. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-920706-0.
  2. ^ Barua, Pradeep (2005-01-01). The State at War in South Asia. U of Nebraska Press. pp. 81–83. ISBN 978-0-8032-1344-9.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 08:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 08:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese–Algerian War (1790–1813)

Portuguese–Algerian War (1790–1813) (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 doesn't provide evidence of a formal declaration of war between Portugal and Algiers, nor does the peace treaty describe an end to the supposed war. Instead, this article only describes a few skirmishes between the two. Additionally, user Saguescabe gives explicit reasons in the talk page that "coincidentally" no one answered or responded to since April 2024.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Raïs Hamidou had been involved in this purported war, it would be in many history books, including xyr biographies. It is not. Rather, Hamidou's biographies (e.g. Cory 2012, p. 11) generally portray xem as the last hurrah of the corsairs, a problem for European states that stretched over many centuries. Reading the Fkair source, that's what Fkair is actually saying too. Fkair starts the narrative way back in the 15th century, passing through the Battle of Mers-el-Kébir (1501) along the way (p.235), and the idea that there's some 1790–1813 "war" is being cherrypicked out of a source that talks about how "Ces affrontements avaient un peu diminué au cours des dix-septième siècle et les deux premiers tiers du XVIIIe siècle." (p.237) and doesn't even have the year 1790 mentioned. Far from being well-sourced, this is misrepresenting its major source to synthesize a primarily fictional view of history. This is original research. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cory, Stephen (2012). "Hamidou". In Akyeampong, Emmanuel Kwaku; Gates Jr, Henry Louis (eds.). Dictionary of African Biography. OUP USA. pp. 11–13. ISBN 9780195382075.
  • Delete appears to be WP:OR. Being immediately confronted by a 1685 picture to illustrate a supposed event beginning in 1790 should raise some concerns. The key text supporting the article, Adelkader Fkair's "Les Relations Algero-Portugaise Pendant La Periode Ottomane", makes no mention whatsover of a "war" beginning in 1790. There is discussion of contestation over Mediterranean hegemony and passage through the Gibraltar Strait. The is discussion over ongoing maritime skirmishes and acts of piracy, which diminish in the first two thirds of the 18th Century (as quoted above) but which then escalate (a "dangerous escalation", but no "war") in the last third of the 18th Century and first decade of the 19th following the peace treaty between Spain and Algers ("Elle devenait une escalade dangereuse dans le dernier tiers du XVIIIe siècle, et la première décennie du XIXe siècle, surtout après la conclusion du traité entre l'Algérie et l'Espagne en 1786" p.237). There is discussion of a series of truces and an ultimately British-mediated treaty of peace and friendship. But there is no mention whatsover of a "state of war" existing between the two, let alone an event in 1790 to characterise a specific outbreak of war. The history of the Portuguese Navy, VIAGENS E OPERAÇÕES NAVAIS (1668–1823), (2022, published by Academia de Marinha) makes no mention of a Portugese war beginning in 1790; it does however detail issues of piracy and discusses a Spanish declaration of war (but not Portuguese) and the Spanish treaty in the mid 1780s (see pp 203-212). Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This reliable source mentions the 1790-1793 war between Portugal and the Regency of Algiers. The source doesn't refer to a "1790-1793 war", the source is indicating the period when US ships were also protected by the Portuguese, it is not making a statement about a start or finish of a war, just indicating war in existence. Nevertheless, this is the only source which mentions war and, FWIW, in the soruce there is no citation supporting this. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Barbary–Portuguese conflicts, there's a lot of interesting information in the article that could be added to the former article. Since the former is a general page regarding Barbary-Portuguese conflict.

    عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Opinion seems divided between Merge and Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Internment Serial Number

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

Another piece of Guantanamo cruft created by a now-WP:SBAN editor. Fails WP:GNG, as Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICT. The article is a collection of various WP:PASSING and WP:SYNTH. Longhornsg (talk) 08:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, Cuba, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 08:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing but passing mentions, and anyway, the subject is so narrow I don't see how encyclopedic content could ever be collected. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge The information in here used to be more notable and easier to find, but some of the links have broken over the decades and search engines have rotted. Searching now for "ISN" or "ISN number" yields nothing relevant, but "prisoner ISN number" yields 3 relevant results in a sea of garbage. One is this Wikipedia page. Another is a mirror of this page. "ISN" and "ISN number" are mentioned on other Wikipedia articles without being defined. If you delete this page, the information may become lost. The information is cited and was apparently encyclopedic for the last 18 years. Mentioning that the author was banned seems like an ad hominem fallacy, since they hadn't touched the page in 12 years when they were banned, and were banned for reasons unrelated to anything in this page. 67.4.130.73 (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Being online for 18 yrs proves nothing and I don't see how an entire article on a number used in a prison helps anything. They have to track people somehow while in custody. Oaktree b (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It does, though. 18 years ago it was notable, and nobody complained that the article existed. Why the change now? Just because the sources have disappeared? Should the article be deleted just because all the non-encyclopedia webpages about it have turned to dust? 67.4.130.73 (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be deleted if it's non-encyclopedic to start with. Being online for 18 years means nothing, we've worked on notability standards, which were pretty flimsy when Wikipedia started. Oaktree b (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An extended DICDEF for what amounts to a prison id system. Not sure why this needs an article. Person gets arrested, is given an id number. Oaktree b (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject meets SIGCOV and is distinct from the prison ID system, which is not managed by US DoD. Identification systems, if well-covered and notable, are fair game for articles. Eelipe (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Links to SIGCOV about ISN specifically, not just passing mentions? None in the article. Longhornsg (talk) 06:58, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Garuda Talk! 14:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the sources offer significant coverage of the concept of an ISN. Some of them don't even mention it. Clear WP:GNG fail. Astaire (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this discussion is still open, here is a quick review of the current sources in the article:
    • Source 1: an 11-page document in which the term ISN only appears in one sentence: Detainees shall be assigned an Internment Serial Number (ISN) as soon as possible after coming under DoD control, normally within 14 days of capture. Not SIGCOV.
    • Source 2: "Internment Serial Number" or "ISN" are not mentioned anywhere in the article.
    • Source 3: "ISN" is listed as one of the table columns, without explaining what it means. Not SIGCOV.
    • Source 4: Broken, and I can't get the Internet Archive to retrieve an archived version. Unfortunate, but no indication of SIGCOV (the sentence in the article for which this is used as a citation is not about ISNs).
    • Source 5: "Internment Serial Number" or "ISN" are not mentioned anywhere in the article.
    • Source 6: Like Source 3, "ISN" is listed as one of the table columns, without explaining what it means. Not SIGCOV.
    • Source 7: "Internment Serial Number" or "ISN" are not mentioned anywhere in the article.
    • Source 8: "Internment Serial Number" or "ISN" are not mentioned anywhere in the article.
    So what we have here is an article based on a single sentence from one document, which clearly fails WP:GNG.
    I also note that many of the arguments for keep are WP:ATA (WP:LOSE, WP:ARTICLEAGE, WP:HARMLESS), and although one person claimed that there is SIGCOV, sources demonstrating this were never presented. Astaire (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Military Proposed deletions

The following articles have been tagged for proposed deletion:


Current PRODs

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

  • None at present

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

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

None at present

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

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

  • None at present

The following military-related Speedy Deletions are currently open:

None at present

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

None at present

None at present

None at present

None at present

Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Military
No tags for this post.