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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

Purge page cache

watch

Luis J. Landin (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 as he lacks SIGCOV. The Silver Star does not meet WP:ANYBIO # 1 and there is no WP:RS confirming that he was even awarded it. No lasting notability. Page created by an SPA. Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shunga–Greek War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG, Mostly based on Original Research and Non–WP:RS, None of the sources refers the event as Shungha Greek War. Mr.Hanes Talk 16:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kaiser-e-Hind Fortress (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)

So far only cited with WP:NEWSORG. The event does not have enough independent significant coverage to warrant a standalone article. – Garuda ^Talk! 13:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Pakistan, India, and Punjab. – Garuda ^Talk! 13:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James M. Durant III (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 subject doesn't meet WP:BIO. Being chief counsel of an agency within a government department is not anything that would be inherently notable on Wikipedia. None of the sources are independent, non-trivial coverage of this person, they consist of:

1. Public records database
2. Schedule announcement that just lists his name and job title
3. Alumni spotlight. This is offline and not on the Wayback machine. If it were accessible it might be something, but we don't really know what it was.
4. Lawyer database entry
5. Linkedin profile
6. Official biography
7. Another official biography
8. Doesn't mention him

I googled and did a news archive search and just found more official releases and lawyer directory entries. An accomplished guy no doubt but I'm just not seeing anything that meets Wikipedia notability standards. Here2rewrite (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Military, California, Illinois, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Just as a note on point 3, offline sources are entirely acceptable. Which isn't to say he passes NPERSON otherwise, it doesn't look like it, but the source 'not being accessable' is not relevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it was in a rare book library or something sure, it wouldn't be disqualified. But it seems to be lost entirely to linkrot and we will never know what it said, so it's not a usable source (unless someone can find it). --Here2rewrite (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Reads like a CV. Page created by an SPA. Mztourist (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No significant coverage and fails WP:GNG. Anktjha (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Reads like a promotional CV. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Minimal coverage in Gbooks, from what are various government documents. We don't have enough sourcing for this person... What's used in the article isn't acceptable as explained. Oaktree b (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Official portrait of General Mark A. Milley (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)

Coverage not WP:SUSTAINED, coverage is WP:ROUTINE, and exemplifies WP:TDS (Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article). Not independently notable and could serve as a footnote or two lines on any given Donald Trump article. Literally, the content is "the US government put up a portrait of a general, and then right after Trump took office, it was removed". WP:NOTNEWS. BarntToust 02:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a well-publicized artwork and political incident with significant media coverage and public interest. --Tataral (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • So maybe your topic is relevant, but that doesn't mean it deserves its own separate article. It may well be best served as a short paragraph in an existing article – Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. BarntToust 03:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Strong Delete per ROUTINE, NOTNEWS, TDS – the page creator needs a thorough lesson in these tenets. I mean this is just ridiculous 🙄 YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 03:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps a trout, master Yoda? I'll invite the next editor who sees fit to, to deliver to Tataral—the page creator—a good WHACK. BarntToust 03:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of those are criteria for speedy deletion. Uncle G (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plain old strong delete, then. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A poorly thought-out article creation. The removal of a portrait, as politically-overtoned as it may be, does not grant notability to the portrait. Mention this in "Second Presidency of Donald Trump" or whatever the article name about that is. Not worthy of a standalone. Zaathras (talk) 03:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Mark Milley#Second Trump administration where this is already covered sufficiently. This article unnecessarily stretches two sentences' worth of content into five paragraphs. As a second choice, just delete per nom with a strong dose of WP:TDS. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per BT. 2600:2B00:9639:F100:89DA:72DA:5ADF:68C8 (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above. Uncle G (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect info to Mark Milley as per Metropolitan90... only notable for how mark milley is being treated during second trump admin. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Military, Politics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it's just a portrait. That's it. It's just a portrait... Norbillian (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom RamHez (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This can easily be covered in Milley's own article. Aŭstriano (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golikom (talk • contribs) 2025-01-26T07:31:30 (UTC)
• delete a blatant WP:COATRACK to make sure that every single petty thing Trump does gets an article publicizing it. a sentence in Milley's article can handle the matter perfectly fine, not to mention actually contextualizing this wrt the animosity between the two. Mangoe (talk) 08:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or delete. There is nothing noteworthy or controversial about the portrait itself. Its only "claim to fame" is Trump's petty vindictiveness for having it removed from the Pentagon hallway where the portraits of all former chairs of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are displayed, including having the wall painted over to hide the holes where the painting was affixed. It's mentioned in Mark Milley#Second Trump administration and in Second presidency of Donald Trump#Other actions. Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Mark Milley#Second Trump administration as an alternative to deletion, where it is already discussed. It's a valid subtopic and search time, so outright deletion is not optimal nor warranted by policy. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Salama Mohammad Salama (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)

Briefly famous for a single event, with little information available beyond what is noted at Clarissa Ward. No coverage in mainstream news sources since this single event. Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Syria. Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Low-level military person, that no one had heard of before the event. Nothing found in my searches either. Interesting tidbit from the war I suppose, nothing needing a whole article here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 08:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E - having taught criminal justice in the past, I like to name, blame, and shame evil-doers, but I also recognize that it's not the purpose of Wikipedia. We're not an electronic version of the village stocks. Bearian (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Limbuwan–Gorkha War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG, The article only has one source and that too fails verification. Koshuri ^(グ) 15:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Nepal, India, Bihar, and Sikkim. Koshuri ^(グ) 15:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Creator of this article is currently banned for persistent addition of unsourced content TheSlumPanda (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete– There is not enough to justify keeping the article.EmilyR34 (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh-Rohilkhand War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Completely AI generated article based on hallucinated information, fails WP:GNG, sources do not treat this minor conflict as a war. - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a very long series of conflicts between the Sikhs and the Rohillas, and I have mentioned multiple references, including page numbers. Please verify them yourself. Jaspreetsingh6 (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's meet GNG Jaspreetsingh6 (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing it's not hallucinated information i took AI help to complete article quickly and i mentioned multiple sources later with proper page number Jaspreetsingh6 (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, Delhi, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Mr.Hanes Talk 19:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe move to Draft (to fix sources - needs some cleanup, and content is not encyclopedic and too verbose etc..) - not quite familiar with this, but others familiar with this can see if a page like this might provide some historical continuity (from my quick read on Kingdom of Rohilkhand) Asteramellus (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think this will be a better option. Jaspreetsingh6 (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I have fixed this article as much as I could, multiple references have been mentioned in paragraph, I am going on a break now so I will not be able to participate in the discussion, My only suggestion is that you can either move this page to draft until I fix it completely,Jaspreetsingh6 (talk)

Chetak helicopter crash at INS Garuda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

An unnotable and routine accident. No significant coverage and no lasting effects. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 19:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Aviation, and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 20:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Military aviation accidents are commonplace and have to be a lot more significant to reach notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete military aircraft crashes happen all the time, not notable, fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete— As per nomination. Wikipedia is not a news-hosting website.EmilyR34 (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom. There's no WP:INDEPTH & WP:PERSISTENCE coverage of the event. Garuda ^Talk! 17:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. RangersRus (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, routing military crash with no lasting significance or coverage. Fulmard (talk) 07:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per WP:NOTNEWS, Wikipedia is not a news hosting website for routine crashes or accidents until unless they become an national news affecting a large population TheSlumPanda (talk) 08:01, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT – Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". None of the sources are secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself, with none of them providing significant, in-depth, nor sustained continued coverage of the event with the coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:AIRCRASH: Accidents involving light aircraft and military aircraft are mostly non-prominent. The standard for inclusion is therefore higher. Something more is needed to make the grade than mere notification of a crash, which is all we have here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving South Yemen (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)

Quite the same reason as of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wars involving North Yemen. A WP:REDUNDANTFORK and an unwarranted WP:SPLIT with no consensus at Talk:List of wars involving Yemen. Garuda ^Talk! 19:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Islam, Lists, Egypt, Ethiopia, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Russia, and Cuba. Garuda ^Talk! 19:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and Middle East. Garuda ^Talk! 19:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Garuda ^Talk! 19:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Historical country. Merging with List of wars involving Yemen makes a statement on the ongoing secessionist conflict ("South Yemen = Yemen"). Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to merge there, I didn't even call for that. The only thing I'd suggest is gaining consensus to WP:PROSPLIT the List of wars involving Yemen Garuda ^Talk! 19:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. BilletsMauves^€500 21:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:REDUNDANTFORK and WP:POINT. This page unnecessarily duplicates information already available elsewhere on Wikipedia, which does not serve the user well. gidonb (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Srijanx22 (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First Anglo–Bengal War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Another mess of WP:OR & WP:SYNTH, Fails WP:GNG. None of the sources mentions the event as “First Anglo–Bengal War”, The article heavily relies on copied content from Black Hole of Calcutta, Siege of Calcutta and Treaty of Alinagar. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Bangladesh, India, Europe, and United Kingdom. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Agree with nom Asteramellus (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Siege of Calcutta looks like the same topic. Za-ari-masen (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Za-ari-masen
  
  The same content already exists there, First Anglo–Bengal War#Capture of Calcutta is the same conflict as Siege of Calcutta, Even the Aftermath (Treaty of Alinagar) is in both of them. Koshuri ^(グ) 17:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pala invasion of Hunas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Full of WP:OR & WP:SYNTH. The article fails WP:N and WP:GNG & has poor sources which fails verification. The lead mentions that this invasion was led by Devapala & his son Mahendrapala (the cited source does not mention it) however the rest of the article only mentions Devapala. None of the sources refer this event as “Pala invasion of Hunas”. Conflict with kambojas is synthesized in the conflict section too. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Afghanistan, and India. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Recently an article created by the author was deleted for being an HOAX, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander's invasion of Gangaridai. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Yet another pseudohistorical article. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete–Per nomination.EmilyR34 (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dauntless: The Battle of Midway (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 about a 2019 film was previously deleted at AfD, then later re-created with more sources, but the sources still don't establish notability per WP:NFILM. All of the works in the Bibliography section are about real-life aircraft and all of them were published 18 years or more before this film came out, meaning that they could not have any content about the film. Five of the 14 footnotes are to IMDb, which is not considered a reliable source (see Wikipedia:IMDB). Three of the other footnotes -- Naval History and Heritage Command, Hall of Valor Project, and a book by Barrett Tillman -- pertain to the real-life events this film was based on, not to the film itself. UCM.ONE is the website of the film's distributor in the German-speaking world. Rotten Tomatoes is a reliable source (see Wikipedia:ROTTENTOMATOES), but it's being used to cite the fact that the film has been reviewed by no critics they keep track of. The review from "That Moment In" appears to have been taken down from the website which is not a major review site anyway. The purported review from "Flickering Myth" is not a proper review; it's tagged as "News" by Flickering Myth, not as "Reviews". That leaves only two sources I haven't dismissed yet: a page from The Numbers with estimated DVD sales and a review on a blog about naval air history. I don't think this is enough to pass WP:NFILM. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 16:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first AfD had identified a review by David Duprey at That MomentIn apparently? Were you able to check it? What about a merge into the article about the battle? (2-3 sentences in a bottom section; the film is listed in the See also section, the film having a rather notable cast)? Thanks. -Mushy Yank. 17:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the review by David Duprey is still mentioned in the article. I found it archived here. However, That Moment In has taken the review down -- see this search which finds nothing -- and is not a particularly significant website anyway to my knowledge. The more prominent films Midway (1976 film) and Midway (2019 film), both of which have much more notable casts and actually received theatrical releases, aren't discussed in the Battle of Midway article, just listed in the "See also" section, so I don't believe that this film should be discussed there either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Weak Keep, then, two acceptable reviews (Duprey and Matt Willis, who might be considered an expert in naval history) + mildly notable cast, released, verifiable. If an ATD is found, not opposed to Redirect. -Mushy Yank. 00:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I think I found a review or two - honestly, this is a good example of why it's so important to represent sources accurately and not stuff an article full of puffery. That can do more to damage the chances of an article surviving than anything. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll also note that misrepresenting the Flickering Myth source also puts the other sources into question, so another reason to be cautious. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I looked at the Duprey review - whomever wrote the reception section greatly misrepresented what was written. He didn't say it was bad, but the guy didn't really praise much about the movie either, as he found it generally forgettable. Looks like the other source I thought I had was just a trailer post. I'll keep digging, though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep or redirect. This really, really pushes the boundaries of what is considered to pass NFILM. The reviews are OK, but not the strongest, and the only other sources is an article about the movie releasing (and a borderline WP:TRIVIAL source at that), a database page of home video sales, and a page that looks to be a general database type listing of the film. I do have to restate my earlier bit about the puffery - while the sourcing (that's actually about the film) is very weak, it would likely have not been as heavily scrutinized if it wasn't filled with some mild puffery. On a side note, I did find this Screen Rant source that lists it as one of the top 10 mockbusters per IMDb, but it doesn't give any info on how they compiled the list so I'm a bit reluctant to include it in the article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as per the two reviews included in the reception section of the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No good reason to delete. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vigraharaja IV's first war against the Ghazanvids (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)

Regardless of the notability of the event (which I cannot check definitively, partly due to my lack of expertise in history in general, and partly due to some of the sources about this being books I do not have access to), it is clear that this article is almost wholly the output of an AI chatbot and therefore in dire need of WP:TNT. I am surprised that an obviously AI-written article has slipped below the radar for so long. JavaHurricane 19:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, India, and Rajasthan. JavaHurricane 19:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The article is poorly notable, and once I questioned about the existance of the battle by its name (earlier name of the article), the creator changed its name by thier own synthesis. There is no way anyone can create articles as such "X's war aganist Y", in MILHIST topic area, as it opens ways for many such poorly notable military conflicts. Also, the article lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources, and existing sources found to be lack reliability as it is built on many assumptions, like "thr ruler might have fought..." etc. Additionally we can see the creator used much offensive terms in the article itself (obviously targetting a community). --Imperial^[AFCND] 09:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• note to the closer : Please check the background and edit history of the voters, as meatpuppetry and sock puppetry is common in this TA.--Imperial^[AFCND] 09:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The above user's request is superfluous and somewhat discourages other good-faith editors from participating in this discussion. They should immediately strike their comment and refrain from doing so again. I don't think any user would want to feel monitored for their !vote. @ImperialAficionado, don't you think that was completely gratuitous? An instance of WP:ABP I'd say. This is not the venue for WP:MEAT presumption/allegation. Please don't bludgeon the process and instead keep it confined to SPI and ArbCom.Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 10:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not bludgeoning here dear. I've pasted this notice in a lot of AFDs, been doing this since a long time, and editors who're experienced in this TA would understand why I am doing this. Several AFDs has been manipulated by several newly created puppets, and we just don't want to continue those actions. Imperial^[AFCND] 15:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Well you're exactly doing this right now by dominating the discussion. Everyone should have a chance to express their views, but after seeing that comment, they might feel reluctant to do so. I've also participated in many AfDs that involved sockpuppets, but I've never seen anyone unnecessarily questioning the background of editors. Instead, they file SPIs for the users they suspect. Honestly, I'd think twice before getting involved here, and that's probably why we haven't seen much participation since the nomination. Several experienced editors might agree with you, but it could also come across as biting newcomers. My humble suggestion would be to use the appropriate platform to report any suspected "meatpuppets," request clerks to review their "edit history," and consider retracting your comment above. Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 04:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep: After reviewing the article myself, I would say keep the article, but do not let sources of legends overshadow conclusions of actual historians. Also, change the title of the article to "Battle of Khetri" instead. I wouldn't exactly call it a "war". It was more of a battle.

P.S.: Although the Ghaznis were Muslims, it would be better to refer to them as Ghaznis and not "Muslims" as a whole, for example, saying, "war against the Muslims", seems a bit sentimental. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Life_and_Culture_in_Medieval_India/2wFuAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Vigraharaja+khetri&dq=Vigraharaja+khetri&printsec=frontcover https://www.google.com/books/edition/Ancient_India/XNxiN5tzKOgC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Vigraharaja+ghaznavid&pg=PA337&printsec=frontcover https://www.google.com/books/edition/Indian_History/MazdaWXQFuQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Vigraharaja+ghaznavid&pg=RA1-PA12&printsec=frontcover — Preceding unsigned comment added by SavetheSouthofIndia (talk • contribs) 04:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Instead of deletion, it can be rewritten properly. The topic has SIGCOV in [1] and [2]. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Koshuri Sultan: and if rewrite wholly we must, why not start from scatch again? There's not much of an alternative to a fundamental rewrite in any case, for the article as it stands is, quite clearly, the output of an AI chatbot (WP:LLM) and more or less unsalvageable. JavaHurricane 07:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:DINC. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Koshuri Sultan: citing DINC isn't a particularly great idea if the whole article is useless and unsalvageable, as is the case here. That is exactly what the TNT essay covers. JavaHurricane 13:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSlumPanda (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree that this is AI-written material that needs WP:TNT. https://wikipedia.gptzero.me/ agrees as well. -- asilvering (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the text is dire and we have no solid indication that the whole thing isn’t just made up. Three sources are cited, of which two are inaccessible and one doesn’t appear to have anything to do with the subject. I’ve looked online for in depth coverage in RIS and not found it. If there is a valid topic here it needs to be started again, with proper referencing and not dubious links to inaccessible google books. Mccapra (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• There seems to be genuine doubt about whether this "war" ever actually took place, and the text we're provided with is AI-generated slop. TNT.—S Marshall T/C 01:31, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All issues aside, the fact that this was written by AI is enough to warrant its deletion. And this is on top of other issues as outlined by imperial. This article is a product of synth and the event isn't notable per the lack of significant coverage from reliable sources.

Someguywhosbored (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I think that whether or not it amounted to a "war", there are a number of citations on Wikipedia that suggest that a conflict between the Chauhan dynasty and the Ghaznavids took place. The citations point to this book, which I don't have and can't check, but there's reasonable evidence to suggest that there's a notable topic here. I went with TNT because this text is not a useful starting point for an encyclopaedic article about it.—S Marshall T/C 10:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed with S Marshall. @Someguywhosbored don't know what they are talking about: the fact that this was written by AI is enough to warrant its deletion. Yeah where did you get this from? WP:LLM doesn't state so. Ironically their comment is also generated by AI. Koshuri ^(グ) 11:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and work on it from scratch. Having that said, the topic should be warranted a standalone article as there's definitely enough notability and coverage for the event.Mr.Hanes Talk 11:41, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Birbhum (1743) (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 relies heavily on works like "Seir Mutaqherin Or View of Modern Times" and "Hooghly: The Global History of a River," which are not widely cited or considered credible in scholarly discussions on the topic, violating WP:V and WP:RS. The article contains original research, especially in its narrative of Alivardi Khan’s strategy, which is not backed by verifiable sources, thus breaching WP:NOR. The battle is portrayed in a simplistic and historically inaccurate manner, failing to provide a balanced and comprehensive view of the Maratha-Bengal conflict, and the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources makes the event non-notable, violating WP:N. CelesteQuill (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A book published by OUP is hardly unreliable. Content disputes should be sorted out on the talkpage, not on AfDs. LucrativeOffer (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nomination, no significant coverage about this battle. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Minor military engagement, found no in-depth coverage in any reliable sources. Furthermore, Battle of Birbhum by name, doesn't exist as a battle by itself.--Imperial^[AFCND] 09:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSlumPanda (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete background waffle and no details about the alleged battle indicate that it is not notable. Mccapra (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bhutala (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)

Literally for all the reasons of the last delete.

Theres so much speculation (from the year it happened, to if there was even a battle...) on this page/little information that brings WP:GNG into account because there's very little coverage/accurate information on it. Noorullah (talk) 07:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The last AfD had limited participation and was based on an underdeveloped, poorly written article. However, that is not the case now. The nominator's rationale is unclear on how it fails SIGCOV and GNG when the sources have dedicated at least two pages to the event [3][4] (excluding background and aftermath). Garuda ^Talk! 12:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Garudam My view is from the significant coverage guideline;

  ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." -- While the topic is covered (by the few books cited on the page), the speculation on whether a battle even happened, the years difference is alarming. I think there's just not enough information on the topic. Noorullah (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How are the two pages of coverage considered trivial mentions? Moreover, the speculation is not even about whether the battle occurred or not. All I see are speculations about the dates, which have already been addressed in a separate subsection. This should not be a reason for deletion. Garuda ^Talk! 17:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Makes sense, I think a withdrawal of nomination is in order then. @Garudam Noorullah (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Definitely a better approach. Garuda ^Talk! 18:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I took a look at the sources for this battle. There are no significant sources for it and it does not seem notable enough to have been covered properly outside of Wikipedia. Of the sources given, only one really covers the "battle", but does not give it a name. The article goes beyond those sources and strays into original or at least uncited research. Given the lack of evidence the battle has received significant attention from independent sources, my view is it is not notable enough for Wikipedia and it should be deleted. FrightenedPenguin (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)— FrightenedPenguin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Take a quick look at this comment. Garuda ^Talk! 13:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This war is at best a clash with RS attesting it as a event that fails WP:MILNG with routine coverage only. I performed a search and went through sources used on the article and found the following:

• van Schendel (in English) does not mention this clash. I added this source to the article because:
• van Schendel (translated in 2017) mentions this clash in passing as happening in 2001
• Ahmed (Jago News) explicitly discusses how the Naf War was exaggerated by Major General Fazlur Rahman on a talk show.
• Tehran Times - article I was able to find through a google search, not the most reliable but is mostly routine coverage from 13 Januray 2001
• BBC - article I restored from the 1st deletion, which also describes a short clash on 8 January 2001 and was absent from this article was re-created.
• Mahbub Miah (alo.com.bd) describes the War as starting in January 1 2000 and has questionable neutrality and is the lone standout
• Online Bangla News- source is peacocking and is the only source that uses January 8 2000

At the very least, the last two sources disagree with other sources I could find and with each other. If we discard those two as unreliable sources, there is not enough coverage for a standalone article. This article should be deleted or at least dratified until a narrative can be ascertained from reliable sources.

For context, this article was deleted before for the same reason as a soft delete due to minimal participation. Editor recreated the article from scratch instead of undeleting. Please do note that I attempted to improve the article as I review and found sources, which is the reason for the directly contradictory information currently present. Prior to my edits, the narrative followed the Mahbub Miah source but with the dates from the Online Bangla News source. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 04:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 04:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 04:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The argument for the removal of this article is not valid. Sufficient references have been provided here, which detail the incident comprehensively. Claiming that the sources are unreliable does not seem appropriate, as the diversity of sources still represents a significant event.

  Furthermore, various documents have been incorporated into the article, making the content more credible and informative. An article enriched with references and documents should not be deleted solely due to discrepancies among sources. Instead, such articles should be further improved through discussion and coordination to ensure accuracy. Therefore, I oppose the proposal to delete this article and believe it should be retained. Tanvir Rahat (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  New sources added:

  • Eshomoy article has the same issues as the Online Bangla News article- using several peacocking terms like "The infinite heroism of the Border Guard Bangladesh" and contradiction the Mahbub Miah article by saying that "It is worth mentioning here that the Bangladesh Army did not participate in this war."
  • Justice.gov article does not mention any clash that occured in 2000.
  • Imran Choudhury article is a blog, and is not a reliable source as it is a WP:USERGENERATED source

  Thank you for improving the article with more sources, but we now have three sources supporting that there was anything more than a minor skirmish- two that agree on key details and one that doesn't. These three then contradict three other sources, including reliable sources from 2001.

  The question here is in part, WP:SIGCOV for an event that goes beyond routine coverage in reliable sources. However, my nominiaton is mostly about verifiability (deletion reason 7). Attempts to find reliable sources to verify the claims in the Alo and Eshomoy articles have failed. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 13:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I checked all the sources and citations given in the Bengali Language Wikipedia which still states 600 killed and most of the citations were self-blog pages uploaded back in 2021-2022. For reference heres the bengali wikipedia নাফ যুদ্ধ. And self blog pages like [5], [6] . None of the official Bangladesh media like BBC Bangla or Prothom Alo states 600 Myanmar army were killed, instead it was just a clash. Also, it's not accurate to refer to it as a "war." It should be termed "Clashes in the Naf River". Next adding to that, I haven't been able to find any coverage of this war from Western media either. That said, I believe this article is unnecessary and I strongly request its deletion. Tuwintuwin (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Anyway, the commenter’s name and account appear to be new. However, it is a sockpuppet and blocked, so how are they still commenting?Wikipedia: Sockpuppet investigations/Tuwintuwin/Archive

  @Yue & @PhilKnight, please check if there is any connection. Tanvir Rahat (talk) 08:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tuwintuwin was unblocked following a successful unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 09:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. The user who asked for its WP:REFUND did nothing significant so far. Cited with blogspots and no sign of authoritative sources are to be found. Garuda ^Talk! 21:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There might be issues with WP:NPOV but I can see a lot of WP:RS discussing this conflict, passes WP:GNG. Za-ari-masen (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

There are many mentions of this in the press but further research reveals no biographical info or notable awards for gallatry etc., and is still only a WP:1E among tens of thousands of victims of conflict. Sympathy/empathy are not reasons to retain this article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The status of Jenkins has turned into a major international incident between Australia and Russia. This is not a "sympathy/empathy" article. Thriley (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He may be one of tens of thousands of victims, but the fact that he was an Australian foreign fighter does make this quite unusual — as shown by the fact that it is currently front page news across Australia and has been reported on internationally by outlets like the BBC and Washington Post. It also looks like this may end up being an significant foreign policy event, with the Australian prime minister promising the 'strongest action possible' and there being talk of expelling Russian diplomats. I would support renaming the article to 'Death of Oscar Jenkins' though once it's confirmed that he has been killed, and am open to reconsidering in a few months if this doesn't turn out to have a lasting impact. MCE89 (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Military, Ukraine, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Foreign soldier gets captured... Non-notable soldierly career, or much of anything before that. They've also captured North Korean soldiers, but no mention is made of them. This person being from Australia seems to be the only claim to notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've helped expand the article with additional sources. My view is still to keep and then rename, but if the consensus is that this is not notable enough for inclusion at this time, I would ask that the article be draftified as WP:TOOSOON rather than deleted. This is already a relatively significant international incident and it seems likely to turn into a much bigger one if Jenkins' death is confirmed. If Australia does expel a foreign ambassador for the first time in 12 years, it seems pretty clear that an article on that event would be notable. MCE89 (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is quite a rational position to take compared to simply deleting the article. The very fact of this discussion amongst an international audience confirms that this is a notable event, and the potential to eject the Russian ambassador to Australia from Australia emphasizes an international political importance. Has to questions of Korean soldiers not being similarly highlighted, it certainly is hard to do that when their faces and bodies are burned to hide their identifications. As prisoners the Korean soldiers would have some entitlement to privacy under the Geneva conventions. As corpses there is no such entitlement. When some of those prisoners or corpses are identified, this too is likely to be an event of international significance.

  I have to question the relevance of the specific editor calling out an English language article as not relevant. It appears the editor in question may have some biases, and the Wikipedia community should explore that, as well. 24.10.58.64 (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I will further add that I am a military interrogator.

  This story is interesting to me separately, as the available video highlights Russian interrogation techniques, and incompetence in that field. That said, it is likely with the interrogator in the public video is not formally and interrogator, rather simply an officer, in the field. 24.10.58.64 (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft Keep or Draftify there's been a blaze of coverage, but it may be WP:TOOSOON to know if he or the incident is truly notable or just news. Mztourist (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per MCE89. Thriley (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per MCE89. BilletsMauves^€500 18:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Prisoners of war in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Per WP:1E, When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, an independent article may not be needed. That person should be covered in an article regarding the event, and the person's name should be redirected to it. The subject did not have a significant role in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, so a separate article is not warranted.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Like I said, I entirely agree with you that BLP1E applies here and that this article should be eventified (similar to articles like Execution of Oleksandr Matsievskyi). I don't think anyone is really arguing that Oscar Jenkins himself is notable as a BLP subject, but instead that his capture and possible death are notable per WP:NEVENT. A merge could be an option, but I think the thing that is notable about this event is the international incident between Australia and Russia that it is threatening to spark rather than the fact that he was taken prisoner, so I'm not sure a merge into Prisoners of war in the Russian invasion of Ukraine quite makes sense. MCE89 (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename to Capture of Oscar Jenkins which would solve the main problem for now. There is a lot of ongoing coverage about this incident – his capture and possible murder and its impact on relations between Australia and Russia, as well as its significance in drawing attention to Australian fighters in Ukraine. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - echos of War of Jenkins' Ear. No opposition to a move or re-name as per MCE89. Bearian (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force Knowledge Now (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 has no citations actually about the subject except for primary sources. Non-government/non-department of defense sources aren't about AFKN, they're about knowledge management. Fails WP:GNG. v/r - TP 20:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I was the original author. This can be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpoteet (talk • contribs) 01:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Shifa ambulance airstrike (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 NOTNEWS. The article does not contain any sources published more than a day or two after the attack, and a BEFORE check confirmed the lack of LASTING coverage. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Middle East, Israel, and Palestine. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Strong Keep. Meets WP:GNG and very obviously notable. This particular strike was mentioned in dozens of WP:RSs. And there is WP:LASTING coverage. This strike was mentioned as recently as six days ago by Doctors Without Borders (see here). Helleniac (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)WP:STRIKESOCK QuicoleJR (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Helleniac: I wouldn't consider a list of every single attack on medical facilities to be significant lasting coverage. Are there any other sources you could cite to show lasting coverage? Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Here is another source, this time from CNN, for lasting coverage from about 3 months after the attack (see here). Helleniac (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)WP:STRIKESOCK QuicoleJR (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see where that source specifically mentions this attack. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Attaching excerpt:

  "On the same day, an Israeli airstrike hit a convoy of ambulances, which hospital authorities said were being used to evacuate the wounded, including one outside the entrance of Al-Shifa, killing 15 people and wounding 60 others. Videos from the scene, verified by CNN, showed about a dozen people lying bloodied and motionless. Garlasco, who analyzed the footage, said that cubic fragmentation could be seen on the ambulance door, as well as the clothes of people killed and wounded, which was consistent with aftermath from an Israeli Spike anti-tank guided missile." Helleniac (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)WP:STRIKESOCK QuicoleJR (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Another WP:LASTING mention of the attack four months after the fact by Human Rights Watch:

  "Human Rights Watch documented a strike by Israeli forces on a marked ambulance outside al-Shifa Hospital on November 3, 2023, which reportedly killed 15 people and injured 60.[1] Ambulances are protected civilian objects under international humanitarian law and cannot be targeted when used to treat wounded and sick individuals, both civilian and combatant. Israeli authorities said they intentionally struck the ambulance, contending that it was being used to transport able-bodied fighters. Human Rights Watch investigated these claims and did not find any evidence that the ambulance was being used for military purposes." Helleniac (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)WP:STRIKESOCK QuicoleJR (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Zero coverage in any non-news sources that aren't from the time of the attack. They reported on the news, then moved on. I don't think this is different than any other similar attack, is this long, terrible war. Oaktree b (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This isn't WP:INTHENEWS, and similitude to other events does not invalidate the notability of the coverage. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Correct, it's the lack of any extended sourcing after the event. Nothing seems to have happened as a result, the individuals involved don't appear to have anything significant happen to them. Oaktree b (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Article is about the strike, the witness, talk of a war crime, then extended coverage about organizations offering an opinion on the event. We need to see WHY this is important, not WHAT people saw or how it made them feel. There's more in the "reaction" section than about the actual incident... This is more of a reactionary article, it appears trying to push a narrative on one side or the other. Few details about the attack, then over half the article talks about how bad it was. Oaktree b (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think this is going to get deleted but the CNN reference that treats events around Al-Shifa during the war as essentially a single matter (i.e., they're all covered in a single chapter under a single heading) is a good sign-post as to how this should be treated. Once the heat dies down around this conflict probably we should look at merges. FOARP (talk) 11:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Oaktree b: To be clear, would you be willing to support a merge? Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, if it goes that way, that's fine. Oaktree b (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Events. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This event meets GNG. It was covered extensively in RS when it happened and has been mentioned in reports about attacks on healthcare multiple times between 14 Nov 2023 to 31 Dec 2024. See: HRW, HRW 2, CNN, Journal of Palestine Studies, Forensic Architecture, MSF, UN. The airstrike was witnessed by the journalist Bisan Owda and her coverage was mentioned in December 2024 and May 2024 by New Arab and the Peabody Awards. Photos of the aftermath of the attack have appeared with captions in December 2023 and March 2024 in NPR and Mondoweiss Rainsage (talk) 08:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't favour straight deletion of this but it should be pointed out that HRW is a charity, not news media, they are not independent of the topic. The CNN reference is better, but they clearly treat all the attacks around Al Shifa during the period as a single topic and possibly we should too (e.g., merge them to a single article). The Journal of Palestine Studies article gives this specific attack just a couple of sentences as far as I can see. Forensic Architecture is also an advocacy/investigation group - they're not independent of the topic, and so don't indicate notability. Ditto MSF and the UN - NGOs and international government organisations are not independent of the topic. Photos also aren't significant coverage. WP:GNG isn't the relevant standard - WP:NEVENT is which is why we're looking for WP:LASTING coverage, and even if it is notable we may still merge per WP:PAGEDECIDE. FOARP (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have not heard before that HRW, UN, MSF, and Forensic Architecture don't indicate notability. Can you point me to the relevant wikipedia policy?

  If I had to choose a place to merge this article to, I think that Al-Shifa Hospital siege is the best choice.

  Many of the sources I cited seem to treat the airstrike and the siege as a single topic, as does this Misbar article from Feb 2024 Rainsage (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The relevant Wikipedia policy is WP:GNG, particularly the requirement that the source be independent of the topic. See also WP:NEVENT. Charities reporting on their own work, or advocacy groups reporting on their own advocacy, or investigation groups reporting on their own investigations, are not sufficiently independent of the topic to indicate notability of it (i.e., they would tend to report on it even if it weren't notable). They are of course potentially useful for verifying facts in articles whose notability is already established. FOARP (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The basic premise of the filing is simply false. Aside from the significant breadth of the coverage, it was already covered WP:INDEPTH as early as 7 November by HRW as a potential war crime. It was then mentioned again on 14 November by HRW, so already much more than "a day or two" after, and the coverage has only continued from there. It is mentioned in this 22 January paper in the Springer journal of Intensive Care Medicine. Rainsage flags many more instances of subsequent analytical coverage. If a WP:BEFORE check was indeed performed for this page with 35+ RS references, it must have been perfunctory and ineffectual. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Does being referred to by Medecin San Frontieres or HRW count as actual coverage in a reliable source for analysing notability - these are both advocacy groups/charities, right? I'd be looking for SIGCOV in a reliable, notability-indicating source a few months out from the event to show WP:LASTING, not just a mention. Do we have that? The Springer reference seems better, but it's' still just one paragraph as far as I can see, which is borderline for WP:SIGCOV. I can see two paragraphs in the CNN article (one long, one very short) which is again a bit borderline.

I'm inclined to give this one the benefit of the doubt since at some point history books are going to be written about this war and this is likely to get a paragraph or two in them. I just don't think we should be treating the output of NGOs and aid-agencies as if they were news sources when analysing notability: accurate or not, their coverage does not indicate notability because they aren't independent of the subject matter.

Long term probably the events around Al-Shifa can be bundled in to a single article for more encyclopaedic coverage (this is how the CNN and Springer references essentially treat it) but that's not an issue for AFD. FOARP (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• merge somewhere not a standalone article. It was one attack in a multi-front battle. Andre🚐 02:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe Attacks on health facilities during the Israel–Hamas war? QuicoleJR (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  CNN treats all the events around Al-Shifa during the war as a single topic, so maybe that's a pointer? Anyway, put me down as Merge too. FOARP (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. Merge. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @AndreJustAndre, FOARP, and Zanahary: Would you support my proposed merge target of Attacks on health facilities during the Israel-Hamas war? Asking to make sure these Merge !votes get counted, per Liz's comment below. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would support it as an improvement over the present status. FOARP (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I would. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The Springer article talks about an attack on a hospital, our article about an attack on a convoy. Al-Shifa is mentioned in both and the date matches so I suppose that both try to address the same. That said, is the Springer article individually (as Springer is a good publishing house) a reliable source? I do not see that the article is quoted by us. Also why is our article called Al-Shifa ambulance airstrike if the attack was on a convoy? Not saying any of this must be wrong; just trying to understand some more before forming an opinion. There are a lot of variables in the mix. gidonb (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Notability is based on the sources that exist on a topic both on the page and out there in the ether. This is noted explicitly at WP:BEFORE. Re: convoy Vs ambulance, it was a convoy of ambulances, so there is no contradiction there. Ambulance is just not recognisable, while convoy is rather ambiguous. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding! I understand and appreciate that there are many sources from the time this happened, however these sources do not refute the concerns of the nominator. Nominator makes the case of NOTNEWS and LASTING, known concerns with events that are not solved by the GNG. The Springer article is the main argument supporting a LASTING impact, however, it is very different from our article and it may not be a good source itself (not withstanding the Springer reputation.) Next, how was this attack on a convoy of ambulances the Al-Shifa ambulance airstrike? Not clear from the article, the references, the sources, or from your appreciated (!) response. It strengthens the case of NOTNEWS. gidonb (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb: The strike took place just outside of the gates of Al-Shifa hospital involving ambulances associated with the hospital, hence the association. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, the red crescent ambulance was on its way. gidonb (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- (weak) -- vaguely agree with nominator. However, I would, alternatively, second Andre in that a merge would be perfectly appropriate. MWFwiki (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Message to participants, if you are going to argue for a Merge or Redirect, you must supply an existing target article at the same time or your argument can't contribute to a decision. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Attacks on health facilities during the Israel–Hamas war per WP:MERGEREASON#4. BilletsMauves^€500 12:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Attacks on health facilities during the Israel–Hamas war. While the article can easily pass WP:GNG, that is not the argument here. The event described was horrendous, but per WP:PAGEDECIDE, Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page. From that perspective, I think merge would be the best option at this time.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Attacks on health facilities during the Israel–Hamas war per WP:PAGEDECIDE. FOARP (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (selective) to Attacks on health facilities during the Israel–Hamas war per WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:LASTING. See why these apply in and under my comment above. I prefer merge over redirect as this deserves a bit more attention at the target. gidonb (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Arbijan (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 hoax or misreading of sources. I searched in English Arabic and Turkish and found no sources at all. Creator has a record of writing dubious battle articles that get deleted. The second isbn number is dummy and the first one is real but inaccessibile. Mccapra (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Islam, and Uzbekistan. Mccapra (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not misread the sources and I share them on sites like X as much as I can. Since some of the books are printed in Turkish, their English pages may not match, but I can prove this with visuals. Kurya Khan (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[7] Kurya Khan (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, I have confirmed the sources I provided. It is not true that the information I gave is a scam. If you wish, you can read the links I sent you and see that I wrote the truth. Kurya Khan (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

712 Battle of Samarkand.. Kurya Khan (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofIran I have provided links to Turkish and English sources regarding the battle, and i can give you more if you wish. It is a completely inadequate conclusion that the article is a hoax and i request that it not be deleted Kurya Khan (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you meant to tag Mccapra? The first two links are Twitter posts and the third is a page of a book which doesn't even mention Arbijan. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter links because this is how I was able to post Turkish sources with visuals. The third one says that the Turks were defeated in Samarkand in 712. Kurya Khan (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CITE, WP:VER and WP:NOTABLE. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is no need to post a twitter link to a photo of a page of a book if the book is published by a respectable publisher. There will generally be a google books version and sometimes other online-readable or downloadable versions. If you post links to those in this discussion we can all review them. There are plenty of people who can read Turkish in English Wikipedia. Mccapra (talk) 07:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mccapra's comments. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siam-Patani War (1638) (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)

(1) The topic is already covered at Patani Kingdom#Blue and Purple Queens. There isn't nearly enough information in scholarly sources to sustain a stand-alone article. (2) Siam's campaign took place in 1634, so the erroneous title wouldn't be useful as a redirect. (3) The little existing content here is wildly inaccurate, so it wouldn't be worth keeping. Yamada died in 1630 and couldn't have had a part in the Siamese invasion. Paul_012 (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Malaysia, and Thailand. Paul_012 (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Draft of this article was declined four times at Draft:Patani-Siam War (1638). See also Draft:Siam-Patani War (1634), Draft:Siamese-Pattani War (1634), and linked SPI. Wikishovel (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Article creator has now been blocked, but not as a confirmed sock of another account, so G5 doesn't apply. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete In addition to the concern about Yamada, "1638" does not appear in the accessible book source (and the web source doesn't seem to be anything). There is a 1634 war, as in Patani Kingdom#Blue and Purple Queens, and the final sentence about 1641 does seem to be real, but related to the 1634 war. It is also already covered in Patani Kingdom#BYellow Queen and decline. So I agree with Paul_012 on his point (2) about the misleading title, and (3) in that the content is either inaccurate or already covered, whether or not their point (1) on the overall lack of sources is true. CMD (talk) 09:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since sockpuppetry is involved, let's get a clear consensus before taking action to avoid an easily contestable soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Berbera uprising (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 main source 'Notes on the history of Berbera' that this article relies on does not discuss of such event nor the killing of Abd al-Rahman Bey(check page 9). It is primarily based on WP:OR. No uprising took place, only an 'growing unrest'. Replayerr (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Egypt, and Somalia. Shellwood (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Officer hunter who was sent to Berbera by the British government shares his concern on berbera because “the habar awal somalis have murdered the governor of Berbera after he killed a Somali in an attempt to rob his caravan”.

i’m trying to find hunter’s report but believe abdurahman was killed and it is obvious.

the somalis of berbera also are happy to see some english travellers who they think is here to rid the region of “the unwanted turks and egyptians” Samyatilius (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source you mention did not explicitly discuss the killing of Abd al-Rahman Bey. I have the correspondence between British here and they simply state that it was there was a revenge killing of an Egyptian sergeant, not the Bey who was serving as governor at the time. Refer to page 8.[8] Replayerr (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the Berbera Uprising was a "victory" as you portray it in the article. Why would they need British assistance in getting rid of them? Replayerr (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article should be deleted, no secondary source mentions of such event occurring nor does the sources provided either. Replayerr (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of al-Qarn (1160) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. There is hardly any coverage of this battle in English-language sources. The sole English source cited does not reference "al-Qarn" and only briefly discusses hostilities between the Almohads and Arab tribes. The remaining four sources, which are in French, either briefly mention the fighting in passing or don't even mention "al-Qarn" at all. Skitash (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Skitash (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is an important battle in the history of the region at the time, same as the battle of Sebiba (which still dosent have an article, il think of maybe making) or the Battle of Haydaran the Battle is well described using the 1962 Book 'Berberie Orientale sous les Zirides' that describes most of the battles context. And the battle isnt as briefly explained, if its english sources that you need i will add more if you will let me move it back to a draft.

Thank you Algerianeditor17 (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Tunisia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There is hardly any coverage of this battle in English-language sources. Not a valid deletion criterion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per nom; fails WP:GNG, in-passing mentions in the provided sources. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Passing through passive mentions is not want we want. No proper reference. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 19:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify. It sounds like @Algerianeditor17 is claiming that non-English sources are available that pass WP:GNG, so perhaps they can work on it in draftspace and have it reviewed in WP:AFC? --Richard Yin (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Striking this !vote as a compromise no one else seems to be interested in. --Richard Yin (talk) 08:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom

Firecat93 (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:SIGCOV, "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." The sourcing in this article is not good (3 of the French sources provide information about Muhriz ibn Ziyad (under the spelling Mohriz), but do not mention the name al-Qarn (or not under that spelling)), although La Berbérie orientale sous les Zīrīdes, Xe-XIIe siècles has information about this on 4 pages. However, there do appear to be sources: on a quick Google Books search, I found Cahiers de civilisation médiévale, Volume 11 (1968) and Ibn Khaldun and the Medieval Maghrib Volume 1 (1999), both of which only provide snippet views - but having at least two sources in English suggests that more would be available in French or Arabic. The article needs more sources that actually reference this battle. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Both of the sources you cited provide only passing mentions of the topic. They provide little meaningful information and fail to justify the need for a standalone article.

  For instance, this source states "La counquête de l'Ifriqiya (1159–1160), précédée d'un soulèvement des villes occupées par les Normands, se termine, elle aussi, par une grande défaite hilalienne au Gabal al-Qarn (1160)." = "The conquest of Ifriqiya (1159–1160), preceded by an uprising of the cities occupied by the Normans, also ended with a great Hilalian defeat at Gabal al-Qarn (1160)."

  As for the other source, while I have limited access to it, it appears to echo the same point in passing—that the Hilalians lost to the Almohads in 1160. Skitash (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Non-english sources must be considered fully when discussing notability. The discussion is unclear, so far, about whether the French sources are sufficient to establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Three of the sources provided clearly describe the battle. Two don’t that I can see and an Arabic search didn’t throw up anything else. Possibly redirect to Almohad Caliphate#Caliphate and expansion as ATD if there’s no consensus to keep. Mccapra (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. So far, we have arguments to Delete, Keep, Draftify and even Redirect. If we can't come to a consensus here, this discussion is likely to close as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. The reasons brought forward for deletion are insufficient, especially the lack of English-language sources, which is never a requirement for anything. Cortador (talk) 11:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have analysed the chronology and coverage of the Almohad campaigns in English and other-language sources. This article is a heavy corruption of the events detailed in Battle of Sétif, a battle which occurred in 1153. If you compare the two articles, you will see that the events are largely identical, with slightly altered names (Djebbâra ben Kâmil vs Gabbara ibn Kamil, Mas’oûd ben Zemmâm el-Ballât’ vs Ma'sud ibn Zaamam, etc.) I kindly ask Cortador, Mccapra, and RebeccaGreen to review the above argument and their !votes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete changing !vote to delete based on the case set out by AirshipJungleman29. There isn’t enough here to support an article. Mccapra (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per AirshipJungleman29, with thanks for the source analysis. --Richard Yin (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following articles have been tagged for proposed deletion:

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

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

• None at present

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

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

None at present

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

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

• None at present

The following military-related Speedy Deletions are currently open:

None at present

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

None at present

None at present

None at present

None at present