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.

Purge page cache

watch

Defense of Ahlat 1985 (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)

Draftified for being unsourced before being moved back to namespace by the original creator without any modifications being made. I could find no sources of any kind regarding anything that happened in Ahlat in 1895; the defense of Ahlat by Aghbiur Serob appears not to exist. The text also has some pro-Armenian neutrality issues. Any salvageable content (of which there appears to be none) can easily be covered in the Hamidian massacres article. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 17:13, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Armenia, and Turkey. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 17:13, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Peace Fellowship (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. Couldn't find WP:SIGCOV or secondary coverage that was more than WP:PASSING. Sourcing is WP:PROMO or WP:PRIMARY. Longhornsg (talk) 07:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, Judaism, and New York. Longhornsg (talk) 07:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:NEXIST. Discussed numerous times in Chapter 6 of Helene Slessarev-Jamir's Prophetic Activism (2011) see in particular pp 190-191; see Naomi Goodman's chapter (pp.225-228) "The Jewish Peace Fellowship: 50 Years of Jewish Peace Making" in The Challenge of Shalom: The Jewish Tradition of Peace and Justice (1995); multiple mentions (see pp.240-250) in Doug Rossinow's chapter "The 1900-Year Crisis: Arthur Waskow, the Question of Israel/Palestine, and the Effort to Form a Jewish Religious Left in America, 1967–1974" in The Religious Left in Modern America: Doorkeepers of a Radical Faith (2018); and there's multiyear newspaper reporting of anti-war and peace activities (eg Cincinatti Enquirer 1969, Arizona Republic 1982). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per reasons give above.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 18:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme (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:NORG and WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV in non-WP:PRIMARY or coverage that is not WP:PASSING. Longhornsg (talk) 06:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 06:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wilner v. NSA (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. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE and not WP:LASTING. Not a significant law suit/court case in any way, which the Supreme Court of the United States indicated by denying its writ of certiorari. [1] Longhornsg (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Not !voting yet, but noting that I've just corrected one of the three sources used, because it was misattributed -- it's the group that filed the case, not a third party. There's only one third-party source here, and it's a mere two paragraphs, so that doesn't say much for the notability. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to draft. A Google Books search brings up a fair number of hits, but this seem mention-y. Still, there might be something there. BD2412 T 16:12, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of Evidence (ARB) (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)

More Guantanamo cruft. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTDICT. Not a notable legal term. No secondary WP:RS coverage that is WP:SIGCOV. Only WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR. Longhornsg (talk) 05:55, 5 March 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) 05:55, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of Evidence (CSRT) (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)

More Guantanamo cruft. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTDICT. Not a notable legal term. No secondary WP:RS coverage that is WP:SIGCOV. Only WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR. Longhornsg (talk) 05:54, 5 March 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) 05:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LORAN-C transmitter Salwa (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 sources on topic other than entries on lists of LORAN transmitters. Should be merged into comprehensive list of the antennas instead of having permanent one-sentence articles for each mast PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Military, and Saudi Arabia. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as proposed, lacks independent notability. Mztourist (talk) 09:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recorder (CSRT) (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. Clear case of WP:NOTDICT. There's no WP:SIGCOV in secondary WP:RS on this concept that would establish notability. Article has been tagged for more than 15 years about the need for additional sources, with no update. Longhornsg (talk) 00:36, 5 March 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) 00:36, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guantanamo Bay detainee uniforms (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. Fails WP:GNG, as these are just prison uniforms at a notable prison. We don't have an article about ADX Florence uniforms. There's no WP:SIGCOV on the prison uniforms themselves to establish notability. Only WP:PASSING. And the article is a collection of WP:SYNTH. WP:ARTICLEAGE or WP:HARMLESS are not valid arguments for notability and thus keeping. Longhornsg (talk) 00:28, 5 March 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) 00:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as utter trivia. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG. FWIW original creator indeffed. Mztourist (talk) 09:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Combatant Status Review Tribunal transcripts (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)

More Guantanamo cruft that doesn't meet WP:GNG on its own. There's nothing inherently notable about these transcripts, unlike documents we have articles for, such as the Pentagon Papers. This is one of thousands of such document releases each year by the Department of Defense. This article is a mix of WP:DIRECTORY and WP:PRIMARY. If anything, redirect to Combatant Status Review Tribunal, where it makes more sense, but I wouldn't lose sleep over deletion. Longhornsg (talk) 00:24, 5 March 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) 00:24, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all One now-blocked user's obsession with all mundane features of the Guantanamo detention facility is cluttering Wikipedia and wasting our time. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOT, all of them (and this one is arguably the most reasonable of the bunch). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:49, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 09:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deccani–Vijayanagar wars (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)

Full of AI-generated content by blocked socks, and previously soft AfD'ed. Since its WP:REFUND, nothing significant has been done to improve this mess so far. – Garuda ^Talk! 21:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Asia, India, Karnataka, Maharashtra, and Tamil Nadu. – Garuda ^Talk! 21:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The article has lots of issues, like lacking reliable citations, peacock terms, and synthesis. If improved with better sources and a neutral tone, it should be kept, but for now, the whole article is a complete mess. NXcrypto Message 02:30, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aris AA missile system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lack of sources Greatder (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Firearms and Greece. Greatder (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cancelled project with limited sourcing and no apparent notability. Intothatdarkness 14:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 09:11, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, Politics, Israel, Palestine, and United States of America. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:FORK, nothing that can't be covered in United States support for Israel in the Gaza war. jolielover♥talk 04:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Unnecessary fork. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS? Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 04:34, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: For reasons mentioned above. Also, the wording "complicity in Israeli war crimes" is POV. "United States support for Israel in the Gaza war" is neutral as far as the title wording. — Maile (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:POVFORK. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom. A clear CFORK, also note that the article is written in the tone of fanpov. – Garuda ^Talk! 07:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as blatant WP:POVFORK, the best option here is either merge it or redirect it to United States support for Israel in the Gaza war. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the question of whether the United States is complicit in war crimes is a separate topic from what support the United States is providing to Israel. In addition, that article is already incredibly long with 456 listed references, 260,286 bytes, and about 27,000 words (about 17,000 if you don't include the words used to describe the 456 sources, which add up to 10,000 words). Keep in mind that WP:TOOBIG says that a word count of >15,000 words should "Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed." So we already have an issue of article length. Not to mention, I put the tag on yesterday for more information about the Trump administration's support for Israel, as that article currently focuses a lot on the Biden administration. So no, this should not be merged because that article is already TOO BIG. This article currently serves as the main article to the "human rights" section of the support article. Separately from this, let's get a few thing straight. WP:FORK is talking about forks of Wikipedia which is an irrelevant policy for this discussion. The correct thing to cite is WP:POVFORK, as a few users already pointed out. Although POVFORK is relevant policy here, I don't think that you can make the assessment that this article is a POV fork based on the description provided at WP:POVFORK: "...In contrast, POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first and is inconsistent with policy: all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged or nominated for deletion." That was clearly not the case for this article. This article was created by User:Ghazaalch with the original title of "Accusation of US complicity in Israel's alleged war crimes in Gaza" and that article was focused mainly on scholars, international human rights experts, and activists who were accusing the United States of complicity. And, as shown in this edit, this article is spillover from the Gaza genocide article too. This idea that this article was created as a POV fork of the support article is just not true. This article's content is covered under WP:SUBPOV. If you have concerns about WP:NPOV and feel that this article needs balance, feel free to add more pro-US and pro-Israel positions that are underrepresented in this article. The solution is not to delete this article.--JasonMacker (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  this should not be merged because that article is already TOO BIG. I'm not proposing a merge. I think virtually all of the content in this article is redundant with other articles. The only difference is this article describes US support for Israel as complicity with war crimes.

  If you want to convince me it's WP:SUBPOV you'd have to show me that this covers something different than the parent article. Give specific examples of content not covered in United States support for Israel in the Gaza war. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't understand what this objection is supposed to be. My point is that this article is a legitimate WP:SUBPOV and child article of both Gaza genocide and United States support for Israel in the Gaza war, with both being WP:TOOBIG. Suppose your argument is that this article has things that are duplicated in the other articles. That's not an argument for deleting this article, but instead to WP:SUMMARIZE in the other articles and let this article carry the paragraphs and text. Again, the objection of WP:POVFORK is just not accurate, so I'm failing to see the actual reason why this article should be deleted. JasonMacker (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems best to first Merge any relevant information that is not already covered within United States support for Israel in the Gaza war to that article, and then delete the unnecessary fork article. David A (talk) 08:06, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Merge the content to an article that is already WP:TOOBIG? What needs to be done is the opposite, with large parts of that article being summarized there and let this small article bear some of the load. JasonMacker (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a yet another FORK around this conflict. Also, not written or named from an NPOV perspective. Do not merge or redirect. If something is really missing elsewhere, no objection to copy and paste of course. gidonb (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "Complicity in war crimes" is a different subject from "support for war". Ghazaalch (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you give some specific examples of content covered in the nominated article, but not the parent article? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 15:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Clear-cut POV fork with content copied from other articles. Astaire (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Codonified (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Intothatdarkness 13:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Anonymous 19:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Well that opinion is not reflected by anyone independently documenting the magazine. The best that I have is ISBN 9780824055387 mentioning it in its entry for the United States Naval Institute, listing it alongside Proceedings in 1 sentence. Mind you, that proposed deletion rationale is wrong, too. Notability was a hot topic in 2005. Uncle G (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly I need to brush up on my wikihistory (wikstory?). I thought it was 2007 when notability guidelines started to take their modern shape, to the frustrations of many. — Anonymous 20:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • They started not long after Project:fame and importance failed in 2004. That wasn't the first attempt at a formula, and people were still looking for an idea that worked. I had come up with User:Uncle G/On notability in 2006, but the concept predated that. By about 3 years. It had been put into policy, albeit not with universal application but just to the biographies of persons, in 2003. People just hadn't noticed, or realized the universality. So we took the long way around with a whole discussion of "Jimbo's 'No'". I had been using it before I wrote that page, and it had worked. I ended up explaining the PNC a lot. Uncle G (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      A very interesting piece of Wikipedia history. I definitely learned something today. — Anonymous 02:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. Shellwood (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 08:06, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Wrestling. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:14, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and India. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. TNT is right. I'd have honoured the G5, since the only significant, non-gnomey edits are from ImperialAficionado themselves (at least, if we don't count Diannaa with the copyvio cleanup). No need for an ATD when we're dealing with poor creations by long-since-cbanned sockpuppets. -- asilvering (talk) 10:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom and I agree after reviewing that WP:TNT will be the right action. RangersRus (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom topic is notable, blow it up and start over. Mr.Hanes Talk 18:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:03, 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 (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]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:16, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clear POVFORK of List of largest empires. Orientls (talk) 10:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of largest empires: as this whole article is a fork of "List of largest empires" article with no prior discussion. NXcrypto Message 20:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, this again? I redirected the similar List of largest empires in India to List of largest empires as an inappropriate WP:CONTENTFORK a few years ago. Nothing has changed since, really. Redirect or delete; I have no strong preference between those two options. TompaDompa (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might also add that several of the citations here are fraudulent. There are several citations to Taagepera 1997 (that article is also for some reason cited twice in separate references) for content that is not verified by that source. TompaDompa (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:POVFORK. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Page is WP:CFORK of List of largest empires. No need for this page. RangersRus (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of largest empires as it is a WP:CFORK of List of largest empires. Mr.Hanes Talk 16:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Iraq. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Subject appears to be made up. A Google search of the subject yielded nothing. Madeleine (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I went through all the usual suspects (google news/books/scholar, bing, newspapers.com). I found two separate incidents known by that name [2][3] and um, well, it's safe to say neither of them have any passing similarity to the topic being discussed in this page. I also tried searching for any cache discoveries on the date in question during the Iraq War - I think possible the article is referencing this incident [4] but some of the details seem different and there is also no reference to haze of any color. Looks like a possible hoax. Zzz plant (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not a hoax. The body is just a copy of a military press release, no indication of notability: [5]. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also the source that is cited, mnf-iraq.com, was the legitimate site of MNF-Iraq but it was usurped by the spam site. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Iraq. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 02:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As with Operation Purple Haze, subject appears to be made up. A Google search of the subject yielded nothing. Madeleine (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not a hoax, just a copy of this military press release. The domain mnf-iraq.com was usurped by a spam site. Clearly not notable though. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG. The article lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The only reference is from a Multi-National Force Iraq (MNF-I) website, which is a primary source and does not establish notability. The operation itself appears to be a minor raid with no long-term strategic impact and similar small-scale raids during the Iraq War have not received standalone articles. NXcrypto Message 20:16, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Military, and Georgia (U.S. state). Bridget (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Agreed with the nominator. She is certainly more notable than your average military member, though with the lack of WP:SIGCOV in independent sources, possibly a WP:TOOSOON. Madeleine (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Her service is appreciated and honored, but there isn't enough here to establish Wikipeida notability. Note that the rank of Major is entirely WP:RUNOFTHEMILL - even back in the days when WP:SOLDIER was referred to only flag officer rank (for NG, that'd be the ranks of brigadier general and up) was worthy of note, and it's only tighter now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sad but true, only one indepth source. I could not find others. If someone can find one source matching the VNG article, pling me and I will gladly change my vote to keep. --GRuban (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. Suggest either delete or redirecting to Mongol invasions and conquests.

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]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Asia, and Mongolia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The source clearly mentions the title as Conquests of Genghis Khan Which covers all the sub topic Mentioned in the article From page number 103–1121, No this is not made through LLM it has a human score of 90% verified by GPTZero. Mr.Hanes Talk 04:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom (i.e., as a fork). Srnec (talk) 04:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the creator wishes to keep working on it, draftify is acceptable to me. The topic per se is not illegitimate. Srnec (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this redundant fork, per nom. JFHJr (㊟) 04:44, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per my source analysis:

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Dictionary of Battles and Sieges: A Guide to 8,500 Battles from Antiquity through the Twenty-first Century [3 volumes]	WP:SCHOLARSHIP	Bloomsbury Publishing		✔ Yes
Genghis Khan : his life and legacy		Wiley		✔ Yes
Genghis Khan : his conquests, his empire, his legacy		Frank McLynn -- a renowned biographer and historiographer.		✔ Yes
The History Of The World Conqueror Vol I		Harvard University Press		✔ Yes
The Horde: How the Mongols Changed the World		Harvard University Press		✘ No
The History of the Mongol Conquests		Taylor & Francis		✔ Yes
The Mongol Empire		Edinburgh University Press		✔ Yes
Genghis Khan and the Mongol empire				✔ 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 [6]. 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]

@TompaDompa: to take a look at one incident of this extremely flawed source analysis: The Mongol Empire by Timothy May, marked above in the table, is cited twice in the article. It purports to cite three sentences in "Siege of Gurganj". The most this book says about the Siege of Gurganj is "Jochi marched along the Syr Darya towards Urgench and Khwarazm" on p. 62.

Similarly, the article says that the book verifies a paragraph about the Battle of the Indus. What the book actually says about the Battle of the Indus is "He then followed Jalal al-Din, finally catching him at the Indus River in 1221. With his flanks crumbling, Jalal al-Din spurred his horse off a cliff and into the river."

I don't know how Mr.Hanes wrote this article, but I suspect that if not LLMs, they looked at each individual article, wrote what they wanted, and then copied a couple of random citations to make it look legitimate. Needless to say, that is not how article writing should be. I think WP:TNT is quite possibly applicable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Mongol invasions and conquests: as article is well-sourced and not a clear fork, though some content may have been copied from multiple pages. But, the topic closely overlaps with "Mongol Invasions and Conquests", making it somewhat duplicative. NXcrypto Message 02:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom and above, to the suggested target. Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 15:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• Keep Passes WP:GNG. Enough material to write a fairly substantial article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The article is large enough at this point thus it wouldn’t make sense to delete or merge with another article.Ihavetoentermyusername (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment − I would encourage the two Keep !votes to review the sourcing. Just because it's a long article doesn't mean the subject is notable. The vast majority of sources, while valid for supporting the statements of fact, are not necessarily adequate for determining notability (e.g., primary sources such as correspondence or records, or passing mentions in references to other people or events). I don't think anyone is arguing that this isn't a well written, thoroughly sourced article...it most certainly is. The question is whether or not the individual has actually received adequate signfiicant coverage in independent, reliable sources to warrant inclusion per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. nf utvol (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, India, and Rajasthan. Koshuri ^(グ) 19:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Koshuri ^(グ) 19:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There are plenty of sources that significantly cover it. The article could be expanded though. [7] [8] [9] (pg 209) [10] (Page 221) [11] (pg 136) Noorullah (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete : Per nomination. The sources provided by Noorullah21 doesn't provides WP:SIGCOV while other ones are unreliable. First two sources doens't have WP:SIGCOV and the authors of the rest of the sources are not historian. CelesteQuill (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @CelesteQuill Nonsense. Cited on google scholars: [12] [13] Noorullah (talk) 04:36, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, Israel, and Palestine. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep-The article has abundant citations from primary reliable sources. Certainly not every article cited has this as its main subject, but enough do to indicate that this is a noteworthy topic. Display name 99 (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What do you mean by primary sources? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:46, 22 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]

• Keep, as the article has numerous citations from reliable sources (as per Display name 99), though the article should be renamed to something such as "Israeli enabling of Hamas" as per NHCLS. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• 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) 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]

• Merge to Capture of Vrnograč, agree with nom that it is insufficient to justify two articles, might as well just combine the two. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 15:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• This seems like a totally daft way of presenting what in the history books (including the ones cited) is called "the rebellion [or revolt] of Qasim Khan", a short-lived rebellion against Mughlani Begum. Uncle G (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Shellwood (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sikhism, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:17, 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]

    • My note was just awareness about the mess and incorrect details on the page before I reverted to last suitable revision. You made some talking points for discussion. What title or description do you suggest? RangersRus (talk) 10:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought about this as I was checking all of those history books, and if I were writing I wouldn't be writing a standalone article at all, but expanding Mughlani Begum, because her and the development of the Rakhi system are what the historians are talking about. Uncle G (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

        I see, so possible Merge instead of outright deletion? Sounds fine by me. Noorullah (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Zero mentions of any such "battle" in reliable sources available to me. Possibly merge salvagable content without redirect as per the above discussion. utcursch | talk 22:41, 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]

• Delete if the sources don’t even support the title then this is unsalvageable. Don’t merge, use actual sources to expand possible targets rather than degrading them with this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Mughlani_Begum#Qasim_Khan’s_Defeat_and_Imprisonment_(1754). Most of the content can be merged with reliable sources. RangersRus (talk) 03:46, 4 March 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 (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' [18] 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 [19], doesn't give confidence that this event pass WP:SIGCOV & WP:GNG. Koshuri ^(グ) 15:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, India, Europe, and United Kingdom. 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[20]. 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[21] (p-955), C. Hayavadana Rao [22] p-1317), and Narendra Krishna Sonna [23] (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:[24], [25], [26], [27]... 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 [28] 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]

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) (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.

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 February 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article is well sourced. The idea that wars need a "formal declaration of war" doesn't hold much water. M.Bitton (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, a formal declaration of war is necessary to make it clear. But instead we are left with an arbitrary start and end date. There were already other skirmishes before 1790, and the result is misleadingly labeled as an "Algerian victory".

  If these skirmishes are to be mentioned, they should be placed in the article "Barbary–Portuguese conflicts". Kolno (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Undeclared war says otherwise. If you want to challenge the result, then you need to do it in the article's talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What about the start and end dates being arbitrary? Without context there is no point for the article to stand on. Kolno (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Algeria, and Portugal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Barbary–Portuguese conflicts. A quick look at the sources does not use "war" and certainly not "Portuguese–Algerian War", so this title is inappropriate original research deserving of a WP:TROUT. It's not clear to me that naval battles in 1796 should be tied to the capture of a trade ship in 1810 like this. The main source describes "Algerian-Portuguese relations during the Ottoman period", but not an ongoing or specific war between these dates, but rather a series of confrontations. I think Barbary–Portuguese conflicts would be the best place to include this information. Reywas92^Talk 19:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This reliable source mentions the1790-1793 war between Portugal and the Regency of Algiers. M.Bitton (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A single phrase without context doesn't prove anything. Kolno (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It proves that the claim that the sources does not use "war" is not quite correct. M.Bitton (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is rather useless, as the source says the war was 1790-1793, yet this article has zero content about this time period except that a truce was reached in 1793, and the rest of the article was events following that. Comparing that one line to this article is a non sequitur. Reywas92^Talk 05:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFCory2012 (help)) 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]

  • The bits of this article that aren't synthesizing a fictional war are either already there or already in Action of 27 May 1802. Uncle G (talk) 01:07, 27 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]

The following articles have been tagged for proposed deletion:

• Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Article alerts#PROD

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