Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Military. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Military|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Military. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military/archive

watch

Military and combat

Battle of Lagarde

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

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

First, WP:D states that we should only disambiguate when "for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead". I think the reference to "Wikipedia article" impliedly means English Wikipedia, not foreign-language Wikipedias. Indeed, MOS:DABMENTION requires that each entry have a blue-linked article, not an interwiki link. Second, the change requires adding a disambiguator to an otherwise unambiguous article title. Finally, there are a significant number of incoming links to this title, presumably because the intended link was Battle of Lagarde (1940), which had been around for 9.5 years at its old title. (A hatnote is not an appropriate alternative because WP:REDHAT states that a hatnote cannot lead to a red link.) voorts (talk/contributions) 23:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Disambiguations, France, Germany, and Poland. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Move Battle of Lagarde (1940) to Battle of Lagarde - unnecessary disambiguation per WP:PRIMARYRED. The disambiguation page can be moved to Battle of Lagarde (disambiguation). I don't see a point in deleting it — hopefully it encourages someone to translate the German article. C F A 💬 23:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Our primary concern should be for readers, not editors or translators. I think a reader directed to Battle of Lagarde (disambiguation) would be confused to find (1) a link to Battle of Lagarde, (2) a red link, and (3) a link to an article in German. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Bogucice

Battle of Bogucice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD |)

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

Poorly referenced, only one source says that such a "battle" existed and moreover the source is completely biased for the Ukrainian side. No polish sources or books talk about such a battle in Bogucice. Olek Novy (talk) 08:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

In fact, the article should be removed because of the controversy, the source on which the article is based is "Volodymyr Viatrovich" considered to be an unreliable historian who tried to cover up the Volhyn massacre and I am in favour of removing the article, as well as this article Battle of Gdeszyn and that Defense of Kopanki. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Poland, and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Italian invasion of Kosovo

Italian invasion of Kosovo (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)

Recent POV content fork from Invasion of Yugoslavia. Olimiko (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Italy, and Kosovo. Shellwood (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Maikop

Battle of Maikop (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)

Likely an unedited machine translation. No significant coverage in reliable sources - the existing citations are all primary sources, helping to explain the army-size exaggerations. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Russia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Hung Cao

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Hung Cao
• Articles for deletion/Hung Cao (2nd nomination)

Hung Cao (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)

Page was previously deleted because the subject is non-notable and does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG, this has not changed since and there has been no new coverage significant enough to make him notable. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Was not notable a year ago; all that's changed since then is running for re-election. Frankly, the list of military medals isn't notable, but it makes up a good third of the article. The rest is a biography. Oaktree b (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per previous discussion. The only thing that changed since then, winning a primary, does not confer notability (see Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill#Political candidates). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to 2024 United States Senate election in Virginia as he is not notable at this time. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep It makes sense to have an article for Cao because he vastly overperformed against Wexton in ‘22 and he is now the nominee for Senate. Joe Kent of Washington, who is not a horribly notable figure has his own page and they both have somewhat similar political backgrounds.

NathanBru (talk)

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. The subject seems to meet WP:GNG§WP:SIGCOV guidelines through his major political party nomination in two national elections and the coverage of him in the interim with a decent amount of coverage in foreign media. WP:POLITICIAN reads "being...an unelected candidate for political office...does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline". WP:ROTM § Political candidates is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and even it does not preclude articles for non-incumbent candidates if GNG standards are met. —  AjaxSmack  01:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  While ROTM is not a policy or guideline, it gives the condition that The person was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for other reasons as it is. So, not just meeting GNG for the election coverage itself like you seem to imply. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Vietnam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. He is a US Senator candidate, covered in a lot of articles. Thus, saying that he is not well-known is a weak view. People may need to search for more details about him to have a better decision in the election or for other reasons. I think content about him as a politician will increase significantly in the near future. Given that he has some possibility to be a senator in the near future, deletion of his page at the moment is not a good choice. Zenms (talk) 05:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Fails on WP:NPOL as he hasn't been elected. Creator can draftify and if he gets elected can update (removing articles he wrote used as sources) and reinstate it Mztourist (talk) 08:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
  • ​​WP:NPOL reads any subject "can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline". That's the argument here. Falling back on a rote interpretation of WP:NPOL makes life easy (and I opposed this article in the previous AfD on that basis), but it is not a faithful interpretation of GNG which calls for "significant coverage". On the one hand, all 100 of Virginia's state delegates have articles pro forma, but by and large fail GNG (e.g. Barry Knight, Alex Askew) and on the other hand we have a subject here who is a far more significant political figure, has been a serious major party candidate twice (with coverage of his sometimes unusual statements and questionable actions in the interim) and has been the sole subject of numerous articles in national publications. —  AjaxSmack  15:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
    • I already said he doesn't meet WP:GNG. WP:Don't bludgeon the process as you are doing on this discussion. Mztourist (talk) 06:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep He has been very notable domestically, and I have seen a few sources internationally mentioning him as well. He made big headlines in 2022, and has been generating many large headlines from numerous large media corporations about his candidacy for US Senate. 1980RWR (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment This should be redirected to 2024 United States Senate election in Virginia as he is not notable at this time based on our understanding of GNG, current political candidates, and WP:POLOUTCOMES "Candidates who are running or unsuccessfully ran for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having presumptive notability and are often deleted or merged ... into articles detailing the specific race in question, such as 2010 United States Senate election in Nevada." That said, I have come to the conclusion that it is rarely worth the effort to debate US Senatorial candidates who have won their major party's primary during the period between the primary and the general election. There are editors who suggest that just being a nominee is sufficient for an article, despite there being no policy or guideline asserting this view. So, at this point, I think it is better to use the editing process from keeping these articles from becoming repositories of campaign brochures (or a series of political statements or positions) and refrain from bringing these cases to AFD until the election. --Enos733 (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
  • ​I'm curious about your opinion on a couple of points. Firstly, though "candidate...are not viewed as having presumptive notability", do you think a candidate can be notable on WP:SIGCOV merits on a case-by-case basis? Secondly, you say we should "refrain from bringing these cases to AFD until after the election", but I would argue that losing an election cannot remove notability; conversely if Hung Cao is going to be non-notable after losing, then he's not notable now either and the article should be deleted now per WP:NOTNEWS. Should articles be permitted to exist only for a campaign period? (I'm asking this seriously and not trying to be argumentative.) —  AjaxSmack  15:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

    Yes, I do think that a candidate (who is not already notable) can pass WP:SIGCOV as a candidate, but in my mind this is a very high bar, usually with substantial international coverage (see Christine O'Donnell), but could be demonstrated in other ways, such as academic writings, notable documentaries, or similar coverage after the campaign is completed. I think that many political candidates are low profile individuals and the coverage they receive is for their participation in WP:BIO1E one event. As to the second question, my position is that it grows increasingly difficult to hold a AFD (in the US) the closer we get to election day, especially with US Senate candidates who are nominated by either the Republican or Democratic parties. Because notability is not temporary, we should be careful with our assessment of notability, especially of political candidates who may not pass a ten-year test of significance and may quickly fade back to obscurity. All of this is why I think the pages about the campaign can be expanded to discuss the race, the candidates, and the issues. - Enos733 (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

    I would also say that it is possible that a candidate that has a weak claim to pass GNG prior to the campaign could meet our notability standards with coverage of the campaign. But in this scenario, we would be looking for at least one substantive source prior to the candidate filing for office. - Enos733 (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

    Thanks. I like your idea that "the pages about the campaign can be expanded to discuss the race, the candidates, and the issues". Many of those "articles" largely resemble machine-generated lists of figures. I agree that many losing candidates in single elections are like WP:BIO1E cases, but in this case you have a major-party candidate performing well in two different elections. There comes a point where something can render a candidate notable during or between campaigns, but I'm not quite sure where the line is. (In an extreme case, if a candidate shot an irate debate watcher during a campaign, it would make the candidate notable even if the shooting without that political context wasn't notable.) What bothers me is the lack of judgement that results in four-sentence (non-)articles for non-notable incumbents like this and this while suppressing articles on non-incumbents who have received widespread, sustained news coverage. I support general rules to control the number of articles, but there should be leeway for exceptions that rests on the spirit and not just the letter of these rules. —  AjaxSmack  16:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to 2024 United States Senate election in Virginia as a viable alternative to outright deletion. Per nom. and others, currently fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. No prejudice against restoring the full article if he wins the general election or eventually gains enough RS coverage to pass WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet GNG. I would support a redirect as mentioned. Intothatdarkness 14:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• Nominator comment: I would also be fine with a redirect to 2024 United States Senate election in Virginia. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 15:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Tim Sheehy (American politician)

Tim Sheehy (American politician) (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)

Subject does not meet WP:GNG. I would like to see this restored as a redirect to 2024 United States Senate election in Montana, but my attempt to redirect this was reverted (as was a previous attempt) and this is my best option. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Montana. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect and protect. A redirect to the election page is a usual and appropriate outcome for a statewide candidate. No prejudice for restoring once and if the candidate wins an election to a page that meets WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect- does not meet GNG so a redirect is the logical choice. Restore if elected.- Tbennert (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete- does not meet GNG and this article has possibly been made to boost his popularity among Republicans.Radiohist (talk) 04:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet GNG. I would also support the redirect as mentioned by others.Intothatdarkness 14:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect per nom, shouldn't have been restored to mainspace. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 15:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect and protect per nomination and Enos733. Wikishovel (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Kariokskoe of battle

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

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

A minor skirmish at best. Existing citations are all non-independent, 19th-century primary sources, and I can't find any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Russia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

6 Engineer Squadron

6 Engineer Squadron (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 of the article does not seem to be notable. There is a lack of independent references provided. PercyPigUK (talk) 11:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Canada. PercyPigUK (talk) 11:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Any unit with a 113-year history is likely to be notable. Lack of independent references is not a good reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Air Force Sustainment Center

Air Force Sustainment Center (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 a carbon copy of https://www.afsc.af.mil/About-Us/, which is in public domain, but retains tone issues. I do not believe there exists sufficient amount of information in independent sources to justify a article instead of a section in United States Air Force. My search in Google News is unfruitful, and while I did find some coverage in Google Scholar, they are either written or sponsored by the US Air force, like the RAND air force. , Ca ^{talk to me!} 10:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Ca ^{talk to me!} 10:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Aviation, and Oklahoma. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  This content should not be removed as it is consistent with other Air Force organizations listed within Wikipedia. Additionally, the Air Force Sustainment Center is similar in content and tone as other centers listed under Air Force Materiel Command's Wikipedia page. Gradye80 (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that other Air Force organizations are in a similar state as this article, citing only sources written by the air force and having promotional tone. They require improvement, and if insufficient independent sources exist, deletion as well. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Executions and assassinations in the West Bank and Jerusalem

Executions and assassinations in the West Bank and Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

the whole article is OR and synth. it starts with Jesus, who is reffered here as "King of Martyrs", then goes to Eichmann, then to Jewish and Palestinian terrorr attacks. The whole article is cherry-picking, and the implied comparison of Jesus, Eichmann, and "The Martyr Abu Ali Mustafa" (sic!) is OR. There are enough articles on the subject (List of Israeli assassinations, List of Palestinian suicide attacks, etc) and there is no need for another synth one.

and it completely fails NPOV : "An eye for an eye", "King of Martyrs", "he refused to commit sin unto the point of shedding blood", "The Martyr Abu Ali Mustafa", "prominent militant", etc Artem.G (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Israel, and Palestine. Artem.G (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete One-sided (fails WP:NPOV) and WP:RECENTISM The Banner talk 14:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  How is it recentism? The events in order of apearance are: 1st century AD, 1948, 1962, 1946, 1956, 2001 (two connected events), 2022 (two connected events), 2023 (two connected events), 2024 (none). The first one is maybe out of place, with a big gap, but it seemed weird to leave it out? MWQs (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not weird to leave it out, it doesn't really fit and you got the "implied comparison" and offense at the language type stuff. Edit add: I think the request was insulting to you. Sammy D III (talk) 04:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sammy D III Ok. I'll delete that one then. Including and excluding both seem weird, so one opinion is enough to be a deciding factor. MWQs (talk) 04:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Which request was insulting to who? MWQs (talk) 04:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

First, I am a "Delete" four below this. I don't mean to double-comment. I'm also commenting on the article before you messed with it, it's pretty bad form to change during a discussion. Very bad form.

"the whole article is OR and synth" yet none of either are shown. "it starts with Jesus", which is chronically correct. That section seemed respectful to him and the Catholics. "the implied comparison of Jesus, Eichmann, and" (my italics) is quite a stretch, to put it mildly. Jesus may have been wrong to use, but Eichmann is absolutely necessary. I agree that "There are enough articles" but "another synth one" is a cheap shot. I agree that "it completely fails NPOV" but I believe that is probably your writing, not a political position.

It seems that you have problems outside, maybe that is leaking in, but I AGF you here. I'm still Delete, though. Sammy D III (talk) 06:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Full of synth, already covered in the many other articles on this topic. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  What is the synth? It's just "thing in place". Albeit rather fuzzily defined thing and place, I'd move it back to draft space or user space if that was allowed. The scope is a bit messy, MWQs (talk) 04:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete This article is quite unnecessary and the title errs geographically in addition to the other problems. Selfstudier (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, and possibly refer MWQs to WP:AE for disruptive editing in the Israel-Palestine topic area. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as unnecessary, every section has a "Main article" or "See also". I don't see that NPOV or OR problems are clear. I do see NPOV problems but I don't see them as deliberately pushing a position. The editor is interesting but I'm commenting on what's here. Sammy D III (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per all above. gidonb (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: This article seems repetitive and leans heavily towards one perspective. The information it covers is already well-established in other articles. Waqar💬 16:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. This is not a content fork of List of Israeli assassinations because it covers different events. But it is arguably a WP:COATRACK if one considers it as a regular page. Even the title ("Executions and assassinations") indicates this is a WP:COATRACK. This could be a list page, but the criteria for inclusion are not clear. At the very least, the criteria should be defined and the page fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yes. Assassination of Rehavam Ze'evi isn't on List of Israeli assassinations, because that was the other side. And there's obviously zero overlap with List of Palestinian suicide attacks, they're not executions or assassinations at all. MWQs (talk) 00:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Move it to draft space please - I was attempting to fill the gap formed by Capital punishment in Israel and Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip, but there's not enough information available to make a full page on people sentenced to death in a court in the West Bank, so the scope got very poorly defined. MWQs (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Am I allowed to move things to draft space myself if someone nominates one of my articles and I agree it's not ready for mainspace? MWQs (talk) 01:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Not while an AfD is ongoing, no; for the same reason pages shouldn't be moved at all during AfDs. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Gazetted officer (India)

Gazetted officer (India) (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)

Nominated by IP 117.230.88.202 as follows: Not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", hence fails WP:GNG. It violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY as listing all gazetted designations are NOT within the scope of an encyclopedic article as it is not a directory or manual. The article predominantly consists original research, with references that barely support it. Legodesk.com fails WP:RS. (end quote) - UtherSRG (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and India. UtherSRG (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per all sources available through here.--Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep because Legodesk is not the only citation of this article. There are several references/citations which are indefinitely reliable like : The Hindu, "Indian Laws" Several Official Government of India website(s), Website of Directorate of Printing, Gov of India, Other prominent news/media like Amar Ujala, The Indian Express, etc. Deleting this article would be a big loss to the encyclopedia because Gazetted officers are the officers due to whom the whole country INDIA, works in a systematic manner.
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Twinkle1990 (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: There are gazetted officers for the United Kingdom as well, but I haven't come across any articles on them. It is a content fork of The Gazette of India, where it can be mentioned, and does not justify WP:SIZESPLIT. Other than a dictionary definition, there's no other content encyclopedic to be added. The so-called reliable references are either passing mentions or run-of-the-mill news reports about a single news (eg: JCO). No other "independent sources". The subject definitely lacks WP:SIGCOV, depth of coverage, and fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY.--2409:4073:314:4414:2885:8BF:F6E1:1901 (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  But there are specific pages on Gazetted officer of Kenya and Sri Lanka. There are many reliable references in this article as well.!! TheProEditor11 (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

77 Armoured Engineer Squadron

77 Armoured Engineer Squadron (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 of the article does not seem to be notable. No references are provided. PercyPigUK (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom. PercyPigUK (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Yang Dang Khum

Battle of Yang Dang Khum (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)

Unlike WP:Articles for deletion/Thai bombing of Phnom Penh, this one doesn't appear to be a hoax, but the creator's editing pattern suggests that the text is AI-generated, with fake citations (which I have removed) that do not support any of the facts. This will need to be blown up and entirely rewritten to comply with verifiability requirements. Paul_012 (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Cambodia, Thailand, and France. Paul_012 (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Thai bombing of Phnom Penh

Thai bombing of Phnom Penh (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 historicity of this claimed topic is completely unverifiable. None of the claimed book references mention anything remotely close to a bombing of Phnom Penh on 13 January 1941, and a Google Books search reveals no mention anywhere else. This looks very much like a hoax, but it's probably not blatant enough for G3. Paul_012 (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Cambodia, Thailand, and France. Paul_012 (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as made up. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Reference 2 exists, but never mentions Phnom Penh at all: [1]. Seems to be a hoax. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Doubts exist around the bombing's occurrence. The provided sources don't mention it, and wider searches haven't yielded any results. Deleting this article for potential factuality issues might be best. Waqar💬 16:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Transit authority (surveillance term)

Transit authority (surveillance term) (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:NOTDICT, fails WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, Terrorism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Just a definition, no discussion or context. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Dobley missile strike

Dobley missile strike (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)

Redirect to American military intervention in Somalia (2007–present). One of hundreds of airstrikes conducted in Somalia. Fails WP:GNG to stand on its own. Sourcing is routine news coverage and not WP:SUSTAINED. Longhornsg (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, Somalia, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - This is the only Tommahawk missile strike to have occurred during the Somali civil war, it therefore is clearly notable enough to stand on its own.XavierGreen (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Laboratory Response Network

Laboratory Response Network (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 WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:RS. Redirect to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, of which it is a part. Longhornsg (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, Behavioural science, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  • "No reliable sources"? There is one reliable source. None of the included material would be found in the CDC article. My vote: Retain. Valerius Tygart (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

    Per WP:GNG, the topic should receive SIGCOV in multiple RS, which having only one source does not satisfy. In addition, the coverage is simply WP:DICT, not WP:SIGCOV. Perhaps a merge. Longhornsg (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

List of Sri Lankan notable senior army officers

List of Sri Lankan notable senior army officers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is no single reference in the article, there is no proof that the listed people are notable. This name of the article was at first List of Sri Lankan generals and brigadiers (see page history) and this name was derived from the List of British generals and brigadiers which has plenty of references. Hamwal (talk) 07:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Military, and Sri Lanka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep and reference, slowly. I do not understand why editors consider deleting material that provides a basis for further research. What needs to happen with this article is (1) that references need to be imported from the linked articles, especially for the most senior officers; and (2) possibly the large list of major-generals and brigadiers which do not have articles needs to be trimmed. There will be lots of material at associated army and SL war articles which can be imported to provide the necessary references. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
•  Comment: I think the first name of the article 'List of Sri Lankan generals and brigadiers' was better than the current name; references must be added to this article like List of British generals and brigadiers article has so many references. Hamwal (talk) 08:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep fulfills WP:NLIST and the inclusion criterion is well-defined per WP:SALAT. AfD is not cleanup, this list just needs some references. Broc (talk) 09:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
•  Comment: @Buckshot06:, @Broc:, Please consider to change the article's name to 'List of Sri Lankan generals and brigadiers' which is now active as a redirect to the article, 'List of Sri Lankan generals and brigadiers' - this name is more suitable than the current name. Hamwal (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  I would support this. Broc (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  I would support this. The word "notable" should not be in the title. Everything in Wikipedia is supposed to be notable!! Buckshot06 (talk) 12:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. This article is notable for research on the Sri Lanka Army and also the civil war of Sri Lanka. 37.111.200.67 (talk) 07:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
• @Liz:, I am the nominator of the deletion of the article is saying the article must be kept and I am withdrawing the deletion. Hamwal (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Al Qaeda Network Exord

Al Qaeda Network Exord (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)

Subject of a New York Times article in 2008, one of thousands of unremarkable exords that the U.S. military executes every years. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. Longhornsg (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Terrorism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to War on Terror, possibly also Al Qaeda. Useful information which has now been turned into Wikiformat and should not be deleted. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge with War on terror.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Covered in foreign media [2] and some journals [3], [4]. Oaktree b (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Invasion of the United States

Invasion of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article has substantial issues including general copy-editing, severe lack of sources for much of what is stated, and is a general mishmash of actual "invasions", speculative ideas about potential invasions, and (until recent edits) covering completely non-related topics such as nuclear and cyberattacks.

Believe article should be moved to draft given the significant levels of issues. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and United States of America. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• Draftify Even with the nom's rightful removal of sci-fi cryptofacist fanfiction that took the article completely off the rails, this article is in need of serious help and sourcing, maybe even an entirely new title. As is, 'invasion' is doing very heavy lifting here, as only Pearl Harbor and Imperial Army attempts to get to the mainland during WWII could really be considered as such. Nate • (chatter) 00:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. A reasonable person could absolutely make the case that putting all these disparate events into one article isn't WP:OR, but it feels like OR to me. The burning of DC during the War of 1812 and Pearl Harbor and the start of the Mexican-American War are all important events that should (and do) have their own coverage, but putting them all together without directly addressing that they are in most respects very different events seems like the passive suggestion of a connection that may not be merited in fact or sourcing. I think it's possible to write an article that is not subject to this problem, but it would look very different from this one. Off the top of my head, it's that "invasion" suggests that one party was the aggressor, and the relationships between American-Britain, America-Mexico, America-Japan right before the invasion events were all very different. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete I can see no purpose in draftifying; this article is a mess of pure WP:SYNTH. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
• As currently written, this is probably a WP:COATRACK. Nevertheless, I would be inclined to keep, but make it as a List page. As of note, we have a disambig. page Invasion USA. My very best wishes (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Special Security Office

Special Security Office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Delete or merge into classified information in the United States. WP:NOTDICTIONARY, fails WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep, this is (a) a real functional part of the U.S. federal government (albeit distributed across multiple arms of government), (b) serves a crucial part in the keeping of secrets, and (c) attested to by multiple reliable sources. — The Anome (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Can you provide the multiple reliable sources that establish notability? The ones currently in the article are not secondary sources that we would use to establish notability, nor do they include WP:SIGCOV of the article subject. Longhornsg (talk) 04:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
• This is a short article. Thus Merge to Classified information in the United States while also copying the data to Office of the Secretary of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Department of State and National Security Council. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep if even one Wikipedian volunteers to do the legwork. I took under ten minutes and hit up Google and Google Scholar. I found several sources that look promising and linked to them on the article talk page here: [5]. I have not perused any of these sources in detail, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of them aren't usable, but I'm satisfied enough that enough reliable sourcing to justify an article on this topic exists. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  The sources provided are either additional recitations of the same definition that do not address WP:NOTDICT or are WP:TRIVIALMENTION that do not address WP:SIGCOV. Longhornsg (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

National Operational Intelligence Watch Officer's Network

National Operational Intelligence Watch Officer's Network (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 from lack of WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Longhornsg (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

National Security Operations Center

National Security Operations Center (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)

Redirect to National Security Agency. Watch center not inherently notable on its own per WP:PAGEDECIDE. Longhornsg (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Firstfruits

Firstfruits (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)

Sustained, independent coverage in one article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. Longhornsg (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Military. Longhornsg (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

FASCIA (database)

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

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

Delete or merge into National Security Agency. One of many databases used by the security agency. Fails WP:SUSTAINED and independent notability as a database separate from its use by the NSA and its inclusion in the global surveillance disclosures. Longhornsg (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Military. Longhornsg (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

National Agency Check with Local Agency Check and Credit Check

National Agency Check with Local Agency Check and Credit Check (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:NOTDICTIONARY. It's a credit check that lacks WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Thoroughly fails WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

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

KIV-7

KIV-7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Delete or merge into NSA encryption systems. Fails coverage in secondary WP:RS to establish WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, and Technology. Longhornsg (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Spillage of classified information

Spillage of classified information (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:DICTIONARY and the term is not notable on its own. Delete or merge into classified information. Longhornsg (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Politics. Longhornsg (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Trivial and highly technical definition, cited to a primary source. Subject isn't covered in Classified information (and to do so would be pointless, as this is a highly specific term), so I don't see any point in a merge. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Read into

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

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

Delete or merge into Sensitive Compartmented Information. Wikipedia is not Wiktionary, and the sources available are not seem notable or relevant by themselves. Longhornsg (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Obscure term of art; someone searching for the phrase "read into" is more likely looking for information on the term meaning "to infer". This is not only a WP:NOTDICT violation, it's confusing to boot. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

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

1 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group Headquarters and Signal Squadron

1 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group Headquarters and Signal Squadron (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 contains one reference, which is not from an independent source. The subject of the article does not appear to be notable. PercyPigUK (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Canada. PercyPigUK (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to 1 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group. Because almost nothing is sourced, there's no point in making an effort to merge material. Indefatigable (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to 1 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group: There is absolutely nothing significant about the article. Simply redirect to the major article. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

7 Intelligence Company

7 Intelligence Company (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 contains one reference which is not from an independent source. The subject of the article does not appear to be notable. PercyPigUK (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Canada. PercyPigUK (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
• This unit is part of the Canadian Army Intelligence Regiment, part of the Canadian Intelligence Corps. Upmerge to Canadian Intelligence Corps. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  This could also be said about the separate extant articles on 2, 3, 4, and 6 Intelligence Company though. Why single out just this one for being amalgamated up? Anecdotally, in terms of actual personnel numbers it's actually one of the largest of those five currently. 90% of the content of those other articles is just Intelligence Corps history, repurposed (the 2 Int entry reprints basically two other Wikipedia articles on Pickersgill and Macalister)... at least the 7 Intelligence Company entry is humble enough not to pad itself out with redundancy.

  It's also somewhat problematic that we've recently privileged the Canadian Intelligence Corps, which is currently a notional/paper organization with no responsibilities and zero staff of its own, with an article, over the Canadian Army Intelligence Regiment, the working unit which comprises most of the working military intelligence personnel in the Canadian Forces. While the names are similar, this construct makes more sense for the British Intelligence Corps. In the Canadian context it just looks silly. BruceR (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Francis William Lascelles

Francis William Lascelles (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)

British official (not that Lascelles). It is not clear how he might meet WP:BIO. His position as Clerk of the House of Lords was an administrative one and does not confer automatic notability. Nothing in his unremarkable biography otherwise suggests notability. The cited sources appear to be mostly primary or unreliable sources, and a Google Books search finds nothing of interest. Sandstein 17:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 17:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. The man held an exceptionally important post (one of the two chief administrative officers of the British Parliament) and was knighted, for crying out loud. Meets WP:GNG. Meets WP:ANYBIO #1. This deletionism is frankly getting silly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  Holding an "important" post (or rather, an administrative role in the politically unimportant house of the legislature) does not, by itself, establish notability. GNG does, which requires substantial coverage in reliable sources, which you do not cite. As to ANYBIO, being knighted is, as I understand it, pretty much automatic at that level of administrative seniority (cf. "Sir Humphrey"); notably, the article does not imply that he obtained the award for any particular achievement. And receiving a title is only an indicator that a person is likely notable, not that they are guaranteed inclusion. If we do not have substantial secondary sources, we have no basis for an article. Sandstein 20:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  The "achievement" for which he received his knighthood was being appointed to the post. Why do you think people receive high awards? Because they distinguish themselves in their chosen field. Which he clearly did. The House of Lords is not "the politically unimportant house of the legislature"! It is one of the two houses of the legislature and its clerk is no less important than that of the House of Commons. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  The House of Lords, like the monarch, is now an essentially decorative feature of the British constitution. Political power lies in the House of Commons. In any case, since the post of clerk does not come with automatic notability under our rules, neither does a title awarded merely for becoming clerk. Sandstein 12:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  You clearly do not understand the concept of being honoured for reaching the top of one's chosen profession. It's no different from any other knight. Sir Ian McKellen, for instance, has also been knighted for reaching the top of his profession. The difference is simply that his profession is high-profile and that of a parliamentary official is not (or, at least, not to the general populace or those who write on the internet - although given he died in 1979 even that wouldn't be relevant). Neither is any more or less notable within their profession. And that's what we should be looking at if we don't want to further degenerate from a genuine encyclopaedia to a catalogue of pop culture, as we sadly appear to rapidly be doing. That's one of the reasons for the existence of WP:ANYBIO #1 - to catch people who are not high-profile but still notable enough to receive high honours. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Shafqat Baloch

Shafqat Baloch (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 to meet the GNG. I don't see sig/in-depth coverage. While he received a military award, so have thousands of other soldiers, but that doesn't mean we should create biographies for all of them citing ANYBIO. Fwiw- the bio contains WP:OR , contains PROMO, is unsourced and flagged for copyvio as well. Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment: @Saqib, I've readded some info removed over copyright after fixing it which goes into detail on his role in 65 war. Waleed (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete no SIGCOV in RS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. No coverage in depth based on any independent or reliable sources thus it discouraged me from opposing the idea of D-Prod.223.123.5.35 (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep I'm sorry Saqib; although I share with you that this article exists in a terrible condition and has a plenty of WP:OR, we can't deny the fact that it passes WP:ANYBIO and should be kept. Nawaiwaqt has a detailed article of Shafqat Baloch dated 2 September 2019, although not much Nation reports his death in more than a paragraph. This should also be helpful. His role has had a significant impact, as well. _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 07:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Aafi, OK, I value your opinion, but I'd like to point out that the coverage in Nawaiwaqt is a column, an opinion piece, by guest columnist Aslam Lodhi and the coverage in the other sources is either routine or trivial mentions, none of which meet the GNG criteria. These sources can indeed be used for WP:V purposes but not suitable for establishing GNG, where the threshold is higher. Anyway, I don't have anything more to add on this. As for WP:ANYBIO, I've clarified my concerns above. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Saqib, thanks for adding these two cents. I did not say that these are enough for GNG but we have an established practice of SNGs and it is really not necessary that each and everything would pass GNG. Those that don't are finely evaluated by SNG practices of which ANYBIO is one. This subject has twice received a highest military award in their country and this is verified, and all that routine/minimal/short/whatever, information, is only helpful to support the claims. GNG is just impossible for everything, and as you say, nothing else needs to be said. If a thousand soldiers, authors or anyone else, pass any of our subjective criterias, it is really within our scope to have articles/short biographies of them created on this encyclopedia, or otherwise just collectively cancel all of these subjective criterias, if we don't want to. _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 09:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. All sources have no in-depth coverage. AmericanY (talk) 07:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Isn't this an evidence of SIGCOV. A twice award recipient of the third highest military honor is notable. What is it with this deletion? Is there anything am missing? Sources seems to be offline. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  There is seriously no problem. The subject clearly passes a subjective notability criteria and GNG/SIGCOV is really not a thing here. If we discard subjective notability here, I guess a huge bulk of articles would need to be wiped up and all ther subjective criteria's discarded. _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 18:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Subject passes WP:ANYBIO, He has received the Sitara-e-Jurat Award twice. Youknow? (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  • It has long been established that two third-level gallantry awards are not sufficient to qualify for WP:ANYBIO #1, even before WP:SOLDIER was deprecated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Significant coverage [6] enough to pass notability. 2404:3100:144D:486A:1:0:87B8:496E (talk) 06:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Briefly mentioned in articles about the movie (source 7), but I don't find much of anything about this person otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  do you have a say on WP:ANYBIO, leaving aside coverage needed to pass GNG? _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 10:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  Aafi, But we don't have a consensus that WP:ANYBIO # 1 override the GNG requirement. WP:ANYBIO also says: Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.. Fwiw, there's an ongoing debate about this issue at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#WP:ANYBIO at AfD. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Saqib, thanks, this is something I was looking for. Notability is always presumed. WP:GNG also says it, "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article." However, thanks for the link and I believe the outcome of this AfD should consider the result of this discussion that you have linked. I'd be glad to change my opinion given where that discussion on WP:ANYBIO goes. _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 13:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Mewar–Delhi Sultanate Wars

Mewar–Delhi Sultanate 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)

The article is nothing but a complete product of original research. There is not a single WP:RS that treats the conflicts between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate as involving all the Sultanates (Mamluk dynasty, Khalji dynasty, Tughlaq dynasty, and the Lodi dynasty) allied together against Mewar. Ironically, the timeline of the war/conflicts presented in the article is completely fabricated, and no sources support this notion. There was no single war between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate, as these were not unified entities. Mewar was ruled by the Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty, while the Delhi Sultanate was ruled by the aforementioned dynasties. The author synthesized multiple conflicts and combined them into a single article, even claiming a "Mewar victory" without any evidence. The article is completely a product of WP:SYNTH and OR. Imperial^[AFCND] 14:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Pakistan, and India. Imperial^[AFCND] 14:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• comment:Note for the closer: Please analyze the background and contributions of the voters, as meatpuppetry is common among Indian military-history articles. Do not consider the votes of newly created users or common PoV pushers as valid, whether for Delete or Keep. Ironically, I noticed that the author of this article supported the deletion of a similar article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maratha–Nizam wars, yet surprisingly promotes this article by linking to other articles. --Imperial^[AFCND] 14:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  Keep I have named the article "List of Battles between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate" but a user named Flemmish changed it to the current name. I suggest the name of the article to be changed to the previous one, "List of Battles between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate", and this is a list where as your article Maratha-Nizam was a conflict which is entirely different from this one. Both articles can't be compared, use common sense at least Imperial. Also, I did not remove the dynasties (Guhila, Sisodiya, Khalji, etc.) another user named Padfoot2008 removed it so you better have this discussion with him. Also when did I add Mewar victory in the article, if some editor adds it (which nobody did you could see page history), you could simply undo that edit, nominating the article for deletion isn't appropriate. And there are several similar articles in Wikipedia like List of wars involving the Delhi Sultanate so why can't this be? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  I changed the title to Mewar–Delhi Sultanate Wars because all parts of the actual text were portraying it as a series of conflicts and a set topic rather than just a list of conflicts between the states — changing the title back wouldn't fix anything, the problems are, as was said, about the text and treating it as a single conflict rather than whether it is called a "list" or not. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Which line of the article portrays this as a single conflict? It seems you have a problem in understanding English. Better work on it. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not the one with an English problem here — I did say portraying it as a series of conflicts and a set topic — obviously this was not one 300 year war and by the latter saying of "treating it as a single conflict" I mean, as I and Imperial said, that you are treating these wars between non-unified entities as a series of conflicts, and thus one topic rather than just different conflicts between polities which happened to be located in the same region. You can't take multiple wars between any two states and treat it as one topic if sources do not treat it as one. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  It seems to me that you simply don't want to understand what is meant by a list. I m saying that this is a list of wars between Mewar and Delhi Sultanate. When am I saying (when is the article saying) this is a single conflict? And what do you mean by non-unified entities? Clearly you are the one who is having difficulty in understanding English or even your own comments. See what you wrote, the problems are, as was said, about the text and treating it as a single conflict Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 07:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Did you even read Imperial's initial reasoning? Non-unified means, in addition to a lack of centralization, that the "Delhi Sultanate" was not one single country and was ruled by four different dynasties. Quoting Imperial's reasoning, which it seems you can't comprehend, Mewar was ruled by the Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty, while the Delhi Sultanate was ruled by the aforementioned dynasties. The author synthesized multiple conflicts and combined them into a single article, even claiming a "Mewar victory" without any evidence. As I said, you're taking the fact that there were multiple wars between the "Delhi Sultanate" and the "Kingdom of Mewar", both ruled by different dynasties throughout their history, and, as a quote from your writing on the article, claiming that the "Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Wars" were a series of conflicts that happened from the mid 13th to early 16th century with a set victor. I changed the title from a list because by your writing, it wasn't a list; you claimed in the lead, before the page was moved, that there is something called the "Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Wars" which is clearly just a made up name of conflicts between different entities; I was simply adjusting the title to more accurately reflect the outlandish claim your POVish article is trying to make. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  So, You want me to change just first line of the article that is "The Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Wars were a series of conflicts that happened from the mid 13th to early 16th century"? And even if multiple dynasties are involved that does not support the deletion as it is a list. And what is my POV push in the article, all wars are supported by multiple reliable sources (WP:RS). Also, list of wars articles are perfectly suitable for inclusion in Wikipidea. And different dynasties ruling Mewar and Delhi doesn't make any sense for deletion of the article, for example you could see Afghan-Sikh War. If you changed the title for first line of the article you should have consulted me first as I was the author of this article rather than having this discussion now. Besides where did I mention a set victor in the article since the day it was accepted?Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 08:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep: These battles did happen between Mewar and Delhi Sultanate over a long period of time as both vied for control in northern India. What did u mean by this:

There was no single war between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate, as these were not unified entities. Mewar was ruled by the Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty, while the Delhi Sultanate was ruled by the aforementioned dynasties.

How Mewar wasn't a unified entity? Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty are not distinct, Sisodia are a sub-clan of Guhila. Krayon95 (talk) 04:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

There is not a single WP:RS that treated the conflicts between Sisodia+Guhila vs Mamluk+Khalji+Tughlaq+Lodi as a single war. So, a clear synthesis is presented here. And your user talk page history is full of clearing warnings and AFD notices on caste-related issues? Imperial^[AFCND] 05:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@ImperialAficionado Well, indeed, battles took place between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate as they were both powerful entities, particularly Mewar as it was going towards its peak, but as explained by you, there is no source mentioning the war overwall, or, in a better way, an organised millitary standoff. Hence, I would request to rename the article to its older name, which is "List of battles between the Kingdom of Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate," or another name, which is Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Conflicts. Let's have a consensus.

Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete

Majority of the users pushing for “keep” seem to be POV pushers from newly created accounts. They didn’t even give any good reasons for its inclusion. As imperial mentioned, the Delhi sultanate was not a single entity. There’s no proof that all the dynasties(khalji, tughlaq, Mamluk, ETC) participated. Nor is there evidence of a supposed “Mewar victory”. Someguywhosbored (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Even read the previous discussion? And for your information I am active on Wikipedia for over 6 months which falsify your claim that Keeps are from newly created users. This is list of wars between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate. I don't understand why are you even mentioning the dynasties. Kingdom of Mewar existed from 6th century till 1947 (now are titular monarchs under Constitution of India) and Delhi Sultanate from 1206-1526. This article deals with the List of wars (is not a single 300 year war) between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate. And please point out where the article shows Mewar victory? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment for the Closer : I have addressed all concerns which users Flemmish and Imperial had regarding page name, some sentences of the intro para and the dynasties of the involved belligerents in my recent edits of this page. Please see these links [7], [8], [9], [10]. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

* Keep It's a perfect page that passes WP:GNG. These battles did happen and I don't think this page should be deleted. User:Hashid Khan Blocked user

• Delete: Yes, some of my concerns were addressed by MuA, but if this article is really just going to be a list of conflicts between the two states (who again were ruled by many different dynasties throughout these "conflicts"), there doesn't need to be an infobox, this much prose, (see list of wars between Russia and Sweden for an example) or any aftermath section, in which again it is treated as one conflict "The conflict ultimately ended after the defeat and death...". As it is this article is still too POV-pushy, and even if all of this is addressed, a good reason was never given why this article should actually exist instead of why it should not be deleted — we obviously don't have a list of conflicts between every two states that have fought more than one war between each other, so why do we need this article just for it to say "Mewar victory" 12 times in bold text? Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  Well, If there is a series of battles between two states for over Two centuries then a article can be made for that. Both Mewar and Delhi Sultanate were dominat states of medival era and these battles were one of many reasons of the decline of Delhi Sultanate and rise of Mewar as the most powerful state in the Northern India, for result section you can see List of battles between Mughals and Sikhs. Aside of that the "Khalji Victory" is also written in bold texts. It's just a style of writing because beneath the bold text, there is is a description of event as a whole. Hope your all points are addressed.

  Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 06:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep or Merge. Seems definitely somewhat biased and all, should be reworded to fit WP:MOS... In general, does this information exist elsewhere on Wikipedia? If not, we shouldn't delete. If it does, we could maybe condense and merge. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful.

Please do not move articles while an AfD is open.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 00:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Imperial's and Flemmish's arguments seem very convincing. The wars between these two kingdoms were not a series of related conflicts but involving different entities (the various dynasties of Mewar and Delhi) ruling the same kingdoms and thus are completely unrelated. PadFoot (talk)
• Reply: Wdym by different entities, do you want to say that Delhi Sultanate was only Mamluk dynasty or Kingdom of Mewar was only Guhila dynasty? Delhi Sultanate lasted from 1206-1526 and Kingdom of Mewar from 566-1947 (now titular monarchs). When article states Delhi Sultanate it's obvious to include all dynasties related to it. By your logic I should nominate Delhi Sultanate article for deletion first as it deals with all 5 dynasties and none of them are related (according to you). Also as per the consensus achieved after previous discussion, the page will likely be moved to "List of Wars between the Kingdom of Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate". And List of Wars articles are perfectly suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia for example see Afghan-Sikh Wars, Ottoman Wars in Europe, etc. etc. So apart from the article's name, I don't feel there is any problem. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 10:36, 05 July 2024 (UTC)

Second Battle of Robotyne

Second Battle of Robotyne (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)

We do not need a page for every minor battle in this war. The bulk of the paragraph for the battle consisted of Russian Telegram links and ISW sources. The links to the ISW sources were dead, and I couldn't access which date the sources were coming from. The sources reporting the Russian capture of the town and second battle could easily be input into the page for Robotyne itself, as it doesn't have SIGCOV or notability in the sources mentioned to establish the second battle as it's own page.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree, since we never created page for first battle of Robotyne during 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive, but instead have a information in 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive and Robotyne pages so I don't think it will be necessary to create page for second battle of Robotyne either. Hyfdghg (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Tagging @Super Dromaeosaurus, @Alexiscoutinho, @Cinderella157, @RadioactiveBoulevardier, and @RopeTricks as they're all active in pages regarding the invasion of Ukraine. Jebiguess (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Draftify seems the best course of action for now. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I agree it is hardly notable and barely has a tactical or strategic importance. In fact, it's mostly a symbolic victory to undo the Ukrainian counteroffensive. If Russia reaches the trenches further north and levels the front, then we can start talking about some tactical notability. With that being said, I don't mind a draftification. And by the way, what's the deal with the generic dev-isw refs?! Where are the editors getting them from?! Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  According to the user @HappyWith, the ProveIt citation tool has a serious problem with ISW pages; see discussion 1, discussion 2, discussion 3. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, I see. Thanks! Alexis Coutinho (talk) 03:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, it's terrible. I highly recommend someone contact the dev of the ProveIt code and try to get that fixed, because it's caused so many well-meaning editors - including myself several times - to unintentionally add completely useless, broken cites to articles about very important topics. HappyWith (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Agree, we don't need an article for every minor battle. We must weigh coverage against WP:NOTNEWS (routine coverage) when we are mainly confined to NEWSORG sources. Content is best placed at the town's article and potentially in a higher level article. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  In my view, this conflict in particular has revealed the limitations of NEWSORGs wrt fog of war. Hindsight, on the other hand is 20/20. A good example is Battle of Moshchun, which was only created eleven momths later. Follow-on sources can change the picture considerably. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete thank you Jebiguess for starting this AfD and for pinging me. I agree with the topic not being notable. The engagements during the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive in Robotyne were much more notable, being the bulk of the counteroffensive at its later stages, and yet it doesn't have a page (nor should it have one). These engagements are significantly less notable and there isn't much distinguishing them from other Russian-led offensive actions in the frontline during this time other than the symbolic value. By the way, perhaps my sources of information on the war are biased, but as far as I know Robotyne hasn't fallen and has been subject to a back-and-forth, the contents of the article maybe contain original research. The start and end dates most likely do, as usual with these articles on minor engagements.

I personally don't care if the article is draftified but I really don't see it becoming an article ever in the future so we might as well not delay its fate and delete it. Super Ψ Dro 22:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think this is the right course of action to take. Yes, the sources are questionable, but I think the better solution is to find better sources and update information accordingly. And yes, it’s a minor battle tactically, but it’s an important battle symbolically, as the liberation of Robotnye was one of the only gains made during Ukraine’s 2023 counteroffensive. LordOfWalruses (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment expanding on my “draftify” vote…first of all the battle isn’t even over. And while the Russians may see it as merely a psychological thing, at least one Ukrainian source (Bohdan Myroshnykov) has written in strong terms that the defense of Robotyne is key to the defense of Orikhiv, much as Synkivka is key to the defense of Kupiansk. The idea behind draftifying is that drafts are cheap, and even though notability isn’t super likely to emerge from follow-on analyses, some material is likely be useful for related articles. I’ll address others’ points separately. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't oppose draftifying but I'm not certain of a benefit/distinction between that and moving relevant content to Robotyne for example (if not already there). For the benefit of others, retaining it as a draft (for now) does not imply it will become an article, only that it might become an article if good quality sources (rather than routine NEWSORG reporting) indicate long-term notability. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support deletion/merge: The Russian military's capture of Robotyne can be appropriately covered in a few sentences at the southern Ukraine campaign article; I find it unprecented, unwarranted, and undue to glorify this event with a standalone "battle" article. Best wishes to all editors involved SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
• Merge Compared to the Ukrainian capture of Robotyne during the 2023 counteroffensive, this battle is far less significant, and can be easily be covered in the larger Southern Ukraine campaign article. Gödel2200 (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

111 Rocket Regiment

111 Rocket Regiment (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 and created as part of COI campaign (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/832LT/Archive.). Ineligible for G5 due to others contributing. Mdann52 (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mdann52 (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Battalion-sized units are usually notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Many similar articles. Akk7a (talk) 04:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment: the sockpuppet investigation linked is a "misguided newbie" creating user accounts for Indian regiments "in place of draft articles". Dubious that there is COI. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Mrfoogles: it appears slightly more than that... are you aware of the ANI Thread? Mdann52 (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I was not aware of that. It seems like either someone in the Indian Army did actually order soldiers to edit the regiment's Wikipedia articles, or this is some kind of joke, but that's definitely weird. I was not expecting User_talk:PRISH123. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: This [11] is about all there is for the regiment. Not enough to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Should we create a bulk AfD for all these regimental articles as a result of the COI investigation? If they're all of this quality, likely they can all be deleted. Oaktree b (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete or redirect per creation by apparent paid editors and lack of major notability. I can't check for non-English sources, which might be helpful on a more obscure topic like this, but it's not like the article's creator checked the notability policy either when creating it. The unit seems to mostly be notable (from before I deleted the uncited bit) for the use of Grad-P rocket systems (see BM-21_Grad) and being a Rocket Regiment (described at Regiment_of_Artillery_(India), so redirect to one of those, maybe. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. What is a possible redirect target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Military Proposed deletions

The following articles have been tagged for proposed deletion:

• 25th Bangladesh Infantry Regiment (via WP:PROD on 30 January 2024)
• Mei Chia-shu (via WP:PROD on 28 January 2024)

Current PRODs

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

Military-related Images and media for Deletion

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

• None at present

Military-related Miscellany for deletion

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

Military-related Templates for Deletion

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

None at present

Military-related Categories for Discussion

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

Military-related Redirects for Deletion

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

Military-related Possibly Unfree Files

• None at present

Military-related Speedy Deletion

The following military-related Speedy Deletions are currently open:

None at present

Military-related Deletion Review

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

None at present

Military-related Requests for Undeletion

None at present

Military-related material at other deletion processes

None at present

Military related deletions on Commons

None at present