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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Military.

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

List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity
• Articles for deletion/List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity (2nd nomination)

List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity (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)

Nothing has substantially improved, and the issue is still that this a list of trivia. Indeed, having looked up Loose Cannons by Graeme Donald, which was cited in the last discussion, I find that its subtitle is "101 Myths, Mishaps, And Misadventures Of Military History". In other words, it is a book of military trivia, and I note that Mental Floss is cited in the article. The whole premise is questionable, particularly in these days of mostly undeclared warfare, and the inclusion criteria don't match the members. Mangoe (talk) 05:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Rohilkhand

Battle of Rohilkhand (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:N and WP: SIGCOV, no mention of "Battle of Rohilkhand" in the sources which are cited poorly through keyword searching and contains original research. I have checked the sources and nowhere I found a thing related to this event, clearly a WP:HOAX article. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 11:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as a hoax or at best nonsensical SYNTH. the creator has produced a run of dodgy Indian military history articles. Mccapra (talk) 18:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Kazi Shameem Farhad

Kazi Shameem Farhad (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 possibly involve a COI. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• delete - Agree with the nominator. -AlbeitPK (talk) 07:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Bolesław II the Bold's expedition to Kiev (1076–1077)

Bolesław II the Bold's expedition to Kiev (1076–1077) (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:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:PRIMARY, WP:GNG, WP:UNDUE, WP:SELFPUB, WP:USERGENERATED, WP:FAIL etc. I think this article should be WP:TNTed; I tried salvaging it by throwing out all unreliable sources (a large group of WP:USERGENERATED/WP:SELFPUB Polish-language websites with little to no editorial review or control over contents published by users or website owners), but there is almost nothing of historical value left. Even the sources that I think might be WP:RS enough seem to WP:FAIL consistently in confirming what the article claims, e.g. Bolesław making all of Kievan Rus' a tributary state of Poland and collecting taxes. Although some sort of Polish military action in Kievan Rus' seems to have taken place in 1077, there is no reason to believe king Bolesław II the Bold was personally participating in it, nor was there a siege of the city of Kiev (Kyiv). If anything, there was fighting over Chernigov. By far, most details appear to have been made up by Polish chronicler Jan Długosz writing 400 years later. (I've added some information in the lead section about that). It is plain that the entire article is not really about the dynastic succession crisis that happened in Kievan Rus' at the time; instead, there are all sorts of fanciful tales about excessive celebrations of victory and sexual immorality within the Polish army (immorality that is blamed on the Rus'/Ruthenians that they allegedly conquered) that are not historically credible as narrated. Pretty much all of this information appears directly or indirectly based on the unreliable chronicle of Długosz.

Moreover, User:SebbeKg created this article on 19 February 2024, 3 days before he was blocked indefinitely for Adding poorly sourced content, false accusations of vandalism. Judging by User talk:SebbeKg, several other of his articles (beginning on 17 December 2023) have been PRODded or nomination for deletion for that reason, but so far, it appears none have actually been deleted (unlike several templates that have been). I think this one should go. It is full of original research and bad sources. The little factual value there may be, is probably not enough for a stand-alone article (WP:NOPAGE), and can be better incorporated in related articles about the members of the dynasties involved. (It might be necessary to critically review SebbeKg's other articles as well, but that's for a follow-up discussion). NLeeuw (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Poland, and Ukraine. NLeeuw (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete, there was a lot of such articles written lately, mainly concering Polish-Ukrainian relations. What's worrying they are in the most part based on the primary sources, which makes them OR. Marcelus (talk) 07:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Sources are too old WP:AGE MATTERS, the article is not ready for mainspace. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 14:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Montolieu Oliphant-Murray, 1st Viscount Elibank

Montolieu Oliphant-Murray, 1st Viscount Elibank (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 refs on the page for many years. I'm not seeing the RS that show why this person would be considered notable against the inclusion criteria. He apparently has an painting in the National Gallery and entries in the directories of the peerage. But WP:NOTGENEOLOGY JMWt (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. As a member of the House of Lords, he is automatically notable. I have added the Hansard page for his appointment. He was an officer in the Royal Navy, but perhaps there were other reasons for his appointment as a Viscount. Also, his death was reported in the New York Times. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  For others, it seems that the position in the House of Lords was hereditary and as far as I can discern from Hansard, this person never spoke in a debate. JMWt (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  Irrelevant. Ingratis (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Royalty and nobility, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Pre-reform peers were automatically members of the House of Lords, which was and is one of the Houses of Parliament, and so pass NPOL. Ingratis (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Viscount Elibank. This article is a genealogy permastub, in direct contradiction with WP:NOTGENEALOGY. While this individual does de jure pass NPOL, the lack of participation in any debate means that, de facto, he was not a member of the House of Lords. Saying he is "automatically notable" is the same type of argument that people would cling to when defending footballers who had 0 games played, but still passed WP:NFOOTBALL, which eventually doomed that SNG to death by RfC. I don't have access to the NYT obit, but I'm 80% sure it does not satisfy the significant coverage required by WP:BIO, and besides we'd need more than one source. Since the NPOL is an SNG, which explicitly allows for deletion (articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found), I think the GNG is a better metric for notability. I can at least find some debates where the 2nd Viscount was involved, but none for the first. I wouldn't vote delete or redirect on an active pre-reform Lord, but here we're very clearly lacking coverage. Pilaz (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  I believe the guideline you're looking for is WP:NOPAGE. Curbon7 (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: The subject passes WP:NPOL as a member of the House of Lords, and thus is notable, but must still surpass the minimum requirements to maintain an article established at WP:NOPAGE. A cursory search on newspapers.com using this query returned a number of decent supplementary sources, including [1]. His obit here also helps fill in further biographical details. This obit contains some family info. British newspapers are generally poorly digitized on newspapers.com, so I wouldn't be surprised if there were more in other archives. There seems to be just enough to be sufficient. Curbon7 (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  While the additional biographical information is certainly welcome, sources 1 and 3 do not provide significant coverage of the subject and expand on the already present WP:NOTGENEALOGY problems of this article. Secondly, obituaries are primary sources, so keeping this article with only primary sources available goes directly against WP:PRIMARY #5 (which happens to be a policy). Notable people usually get significant coverage well after their death, so that's what I'd like to see to strike my !vote. Pilaz (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  The subject passes WP:NPOL, so he is notable full stop. What we need is sourcing to expand on the article so it is not, as you say, a genealogy. These sources do that by providing key biographical details, such as the positions he held. These sources are not meant to provide WP:SIGCOV because the subject is already notable, they are meant to be supplementary sources to expand the article beyond the current genealogy perma-stub. Curbon7 (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  To me, this is one of the exceptions to the rule: someone who inherited a HoL seat and didn't participate in debates shouldn't be considered a politician. In the same way I don't think that every person appointed to national legislature inherits notability for the purposes of en.wiki. For example there are 3000 members of the National People's Congress and we do not assume every member meets the notability criteria there. JMWt (talk) 06:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  Definitely something worth taking up at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). I certainly understand what you're saying and recognize consensus can change, but am generally adverse to new interpretations being established in one-off AfDs. Curbon7 (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep Nice try to start for deletion on other peers who was sat in the House of Lords. Where your leader Timothy Blue? Well, who care the position in the House of Lords was hereditary or election won? You should note that their Era not same, so political positions are may vary. Plus, I dont understand why the nominator JMWt trying gave wrong example? A members of the National People's Congress and British old parliament are not same. of course, A standing committee member of CCP is also enough to pass WP:NPOL. Donttake it WP:IDONTLIKE.

  1.47.157.71 (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Notability established. Added a reference. Coldupnorth (talk) 08:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. One point that's been missed in the discussion above is that his inherited Scottish peerage did not entitle him to a seat in the House of Lords; the Viscountcy created in 1911 did. Maybe that has more to do with the political connections of the Master of Elibank than his father, but a Conservative being added to the House of Lords under the last majority Liberal administration suggests to me that something more than routine was going on here. Choess (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  If that's the case, presumably WP:NPOL doesn't apply..? In which case the above claims of 'automatic notability' doesn't apply either. Edit: maybe I've misunderstood your point. Are you saying he was or wasn't in the HoL? Edit 2: I'm wrong, your point is that it wasn't an inherited HoL seat. JMWt (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• keep good article and a member of British nobility thanks Briannemartindale (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Monastyryshche

Battle of Monastyryshche (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 poorly written article, devoid of reliable sources. In addition, the language is very engaged and one-sided. Marcelus (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Poland, and Ukraine. Marcelus (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

You keep going on and on about the poor article, but you won't even point out examples, and on what grounds are the sources unreliable? Querty1231 (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Wars of the Deccan Sultanates

Wars of the Deccan Sultanates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Yet another article appears to cover a series of conflicts spanning over a century, which have been amalgamated into many 'wars.' The only source Jaques Tony cited for this title and its prolonged duration does not support the timeline mentioned in the lead and infobox (note that timeline in lead and infobox aren't aligned). This discrepancy creates confusion and suggests a lack of notability. Additionally, the article seems to rely heavily on WP:SYNTH and WP:POVFORK, which is concerning. I hope we don't get to see another non notable 'wars' article spanning centuries or even millennia. Based Kashmiri (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Karnataka, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I am confused as to why this article has been nominated for deletion. The article adheres to Wikipedia's standards for reliability and notability. The nominator mentioned WP:SYNTH, so they should identify all the self-published sources and unreliable citations in the article that they believe should be removed.Please all those sources here so that we can talk on that easily.

Additionally, the nominator has raised concerns regarding the accuracy of the names and timelines of the wars mentioned in the article.I have already provided a citation for the nomenclature used in the article's headings.Since the article is heavily reliant on multiple sources, it should include references for the commencement and conclusion of the war, forming the timeline of the conflict.Here I have already cited the sources for the timeline too.I can cite the source with quotation to get easily identify the timeline.

Suggestion:-Nominator as well as the reviewers must thoroughly check all the sources.If there is any problem regarding any reference or source or any paragraph requires more Citation,you may assist by adding tags of for further editing.

Please refer the source "History of the Qutb Shahi Dynasty" authored by H.K. Sherwani.-This source have mentioned the Kemilliogolgi (talk) 07:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The article doesn't adhere to Wikipedia policies and no you haven't cited any source for this fictional timeline of nearly 200 years simply because there's no source defining such a prolonged timeline. Jaques Tony's source is not enough. You have clearly mixed up every war and conflict between Vijaynagar empire and Deccan sultanates without providing enough sources for its notability and timeline. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 10:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Please specify which Wikipedia policies the article is not adhering to. If there are concerns about the timeline, I can provide specific sources with quotations to demonstrate that the article is accurately written, including the correct timeline for the wars. All sources used in the article are non-fiction.

Here i am giving a few sources :

(A)Article mentioned about a war-Cited by

1)Wars of the Deccan Sultanates:[2]pg.XXXIV

2)The end of the Vijayanagar Empire did not, however, mean an end to the wars, for Bijapur and Golconda now began to dispute the division of the spoils.

(B)Doubts regarding the timeline-

1)Tony Jaques mentioned the last battle as battle of talikota 1565,[3]

2)But the war lasted even after 1565- Untill 1673-final conquest[4]pg.33

• The final conquest:

In 1672, Abul Hasan Qutb Shah, the last of the Golconda Sultans, ascended the throne. The following year saw the resumption of hostilities between Madurai and Thanjavur. Thanjavur was invaded once again in 1673, and was finally defeated, and the Nayak, Vijayaraghava, was killed[5]pg.33

Note:Vassals are also included in war [6]pg.XV

I hope the nominator will recheck the all sources and will mention all the self published sources cited in the article.As he had referred to WP:SYNTH to give an excuse for the deletion of the article.

If any further doubts-feel free to ask.

Regards!!! Kemilliogolgi (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think one source would be enough for the title. No other source other than Jaques Tony calls it "Wars of the Deccan sultanates", that too gives only the timeline of 1520-1565. I still don't get how come you create an article of nearly 200 years war article. And then you cited this source which contradicts other sources and nowhere this source supports your preferred timeline of 1495-1673. You're just cherry picking info from different sources which is what we call WP:SYNTH. Moreover you're quoting a different conflict from the same source which is not even related to the Vijaynagar empire. It's just a synth mess. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 10:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delete this article contains many misinformation and not neutral at all. Recently I removed misleading info which is not even in the source.Theophilusbisio (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Theophilusbisio I have reverted your edits to the last version of Kemilliogolgi. Please don't remove any content while the deletion discussion is ongoing. Regards. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 11:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Sambalpur

Battle of Sambalpur (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)

One more article which lacks significant coverage and the sources don't go beyond mentioning some scattered lines that "Visaladeva, the tenth descendant of this line, was killed by a Muslim ruler of Delhi." There's no Battle of Sambalpur ever occurred per source. It's clearly a WP:HOAX article. Based Kashmiri (talk) 06:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Odisha. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Capture of Kanchangarh

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

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

I don't understand why this page is in the mainspace when the sources provide only one line of information about this topic, "After his successful mission of Adhoni, he annexed Kanchan Garh without any bloodshed." The ongoing issue with poorly documented Indian 'Wars,' 'Sieges,' 'Battles,' and 'Captures' articles needs to be thoroughly reviewed. Based Kashmiri (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:SYNTH. 3 sources. One is unreliable publisher Xlibris. I cannot verify the source by M.P. Mujeebu Rehman and the last is not written by Abdul Khader but uploaded by him but has no coverage on the Capture significant enough to warrant a full fledged page. RangersRus (talk) 12:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Arab conquest of Kaikan

Arab conquest of Kaikan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I see no point in keeping this article along with its parent article Umayyad campaigns in India, when there are no sources explicitly covering this event as "Arab conquest of Kaikan", the source cited in the lead for it nowhere mentions this event as the title. Another problem with orginal researched articles is their defined timeline, despite having no source for the hoax timelines the authors of these articles love to furnish their own preferred timeline of one, two or even three centuries. The article topic also seems to lack notability and significant coverage as there are many uncertainty and unknown belligerents. Based Kashmiri (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  Isn't this Hilarious that you created urself fake Fictional war articles of Bengali Pala empire (while claim to be Kashmiri) and selecting every fine article for deletion DeepstoneV (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  Nice try. But commenting on me won't work per WP:PA & WP:AADP. Also you should check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mohammad Umar Ali, best regards. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 10:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• The article is one sided and it doesn't contain neutral pov because the article don't says about the earliest defeat suffered by arabs during their conquest of Kikan. It doesn't show early 3,4 Jat victories, Not a WP:NPOV. पापा जी (talk) 04:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)पापा जी (talk) 04:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Capture of Kabbaldurga

Capture of Kabbaldurga (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)

Lacks notability and significant coverage. Cited with poor non WP:RS and WP:RAJ sources which give passing mentions of this event, doesn't deserve a standalone article. Based Kashmiri (talk) 05:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, India, and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. Again a WP:SYNTH made up battle page. Poor sources that fail verification and coverage. RangersRus (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Siege of Chittorgarh (1544)

Siege of Chittorgarh (1544) (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 lacks general notability, as there are no cited sources specifically mentioning the Siege of Chittorgarh (1544) or providing significant coverage of this conflict. Instead, it focuses more on unrelated events such as the other conquests of Sher Shah and the Battle of Harmoda (1557). While some sources briefly mention Sher Shah's attention towards Mewar in 1544, there is no substantial coverage of a proper siege of Chittorgarh in these sources. Based Kashmiri (talk) 05:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, India, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello!

Here are a few sources mentioning the SIEGE OF CHITTOR 1544 A.D.

As the nominator mentioned:The sources regarding the title/heading of article will be:-

Quotation:-1544 A.D. by offering his nominal submission to Shershah the Maharana averted a siege of Chittor.[7]pg.169

I hope nominator have examined the article thoroughly and than questioned about its context?

I have attached around 14 sources for the article completely dealing with the context of the article completely

For further assistance I am attaching a few more sources so that nominator can easily get the context.

[8] Pg.181 [9] Pg.A53 [10] Pg-529 [11] Pg.76 [12] This article neither contains any unreliable source nor dealing with any unrelated topics.Battle of Harmoda,As mentioned above is completely related to the topic.The commander Haji khan and Shams khan were left by Sher shah to face the Udai singh that must be mentioned and the aftermath should also being mentioned. Kemilliogolgi (talk) 06:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

You only cited this source [13] after the AfD nomination which has again no significant coverage. How can you create an article which has only 2-3 lines of mentions? Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 08:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The source cited after the afd nomination clearly identifies the article by its given name, showing that it is not based on original research. Additionally, there are 14 more sources provided in the article that offer a comprehensive description of the topic. These sources thoroughly support each paragraph within the article, indicating that it is not lacking in citations or referencing. It is recommended that a thorough review of all the sources in the article be conducted before determining whether it should be nominated for deletion. It is important to ensure that all sources are properly cited and referenced before reaching a final decision. (tags: citation needed, unreliable sources)

Note:-Before making a decision on whether to nominate the article for deletion, it is imperative that the nominator conducts a thorough review of all the sources to ensure they are accurately cited. It is also recommended to address any citation deficiencies on the article's talk page before proceeding with any deletion nominations. Only after confirming that the sources are properly cited and referenced should a decision be made regarding the article's deletion. (tags: citation needed, unreliable sources) Kemilliogolgi (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like an AI generated reply. Anyways, the event is not significantly covered in the sources. This can be seen in The siege section, which starts with: When Sher Shah Suri was within a mere distance of 12 Kos from Chittor, Udai Singh II made the decision to surrender the fort without engaging in a direct confrontation. This is not what we call WP:SIGCOV. There's no significant engagement, so we can't carve out an article which only has 2-3 lines of non-engagement "Siege of Chittor". And I have checked and thoroughly reviewed the sources, out of 14 only 3 deals with this meagre siege and the rest focuses on other unrelated events. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 17:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Siege of Channapatna

Siege of Channapatna (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 Indian 'Siege' and 'Battle' article which lacks notability and significant coverage. It contains irrelevant content, forcefully stretching the article. The relevant sources cited in the 'Battle' section provide only passing mentions, such as "In 1759 it was surprised by the Mahratta army under Gopal Hari, but was speedily released by Haidar Ali" and "The Maratha leader attacked Bangalore and seized Chennapatnam, and Haider countered the attack by sending his favorite officer." It's concerning how these articles can be constructed with such minimal coverage, often just two lines. Based Kashmiri (talk) 05:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, India, and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. wP:SYNTH page. Snippets used here from sources that do not help with coverage and others fail verification, and one source used in the battle segment is by Benjamin Lewis Rice who falls under unreliable WP:RAJ source as a British in the Mysore civil service during British occupation of India. RangersRus (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Maratha invasion of Awadh

Maratha invasion of Awadh (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:SYNTH and WP:OR mess, fails notability as we don't find "Maratha invasion of Awadh" in the sources (clearly made up by the starter of article), instead there are several other events like "Invasion of Bhadawar", "raid on Delhi" and "Battle of Jalesar". Clearly the author has mixed up several battles and conflicts to get this resulted article. Based Kashmiri (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Military, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete, As per above comment Rawn3012 (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Basically you are selecting articles for deletion for no reason in actual, you may don't like these article just say it. Combination of those articles has been disscussed long ago and admins gave the permission to Merge it DeepstoneV (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll just avoid your first three lines because I want productive discussion, only suggest you to go through WP:AADP. For the rest, I guess you're referring to this discussion but no one is there proposed for merging it in a new article named "Maratha invasion of Awadh" It's just the opinion of ImperialAficionado. The result of the discussion was delete not merge. Admins didn't give permission to merge it. And stop removing the AFD template. Based Kashmiri (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete - The article "Maratha invasion of Awadh" is not supported by any reliable sources rather the user who created the page just pushed his POV by adding different battles together in a single article. Moreover The New Cambridge History of India Vol 2 Part 4 pg 125 clearly states that Bajirao 1737 expedition (including Delhi) was indecisive not a Mughal victory, also this is a reliable source. Here is the exact quotation from the book; The campaign of 1737 was indecisive, though Bajirao attacked Delhi, even briefly holding the Emperor to ransom. So even results are not appropriate in the different individual battles which are mixed up and displayed here. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk)

• Delete or Merge This was a prelude of Bhopal campaign better known as Battle of Bhopal.

I better say that delete this as this totally consisted on WP:SYNTH or merge this in Battle of Bhopal as this was the prelude of the campaign. The whole of Bajirao campaign in Delhi was resulted in Bhopal and annexation of Malwa according to Jaswant Lal Mehta and other WP:RS. पापा जी (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Mughal conquest of Baglana

Mughal conquest of Baglana (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 WP:OR because there's no mention of "Siege of Baglana" or "Mughal conquest of Baglana" in the sources. Also it lacks notability as only found a line around this event, that "Aurangzeb easily overran the kingdom". Based Kashmiri (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I support the deletion request for this article, as I couldn't find any sources on the internet. I think that this article should be deleted unless there is more sources. Eason Y. Lu (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge to Shah_Jahan#Early_military_campaigns. Two reliable sources from John F. Richards and Munis Faruqui, also a historian but these two do not have any coverage on the battle or siege. One line that says that an Expedition was sent to Balgana and the kingdom was easily ran over and the kingdom became a vassal and this is not enough to warrant a standalone full fledged page. Maybe best for merge under military campaigns of Shah Jahan. All other sources fail reliability as they are translation of primary sources. RangersRus (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Siege of Ranthambore (1226)

Siege of Ranthambore (1226) (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 more about the background of the event than focusing on the topic, because it lacks notability. There's no significant coverage in the sources but passing mentions of few words that "Ranthambore was captured by Iltutmish". Definitely it should not be in mainspace, simply because it fails WP:GNG and WP:SIRS. Based Kashmiri (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete, As it does not passes WP:GNG. More of a background story with no mentioning of actual seige. Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 08:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Siege of Orchha (1635)

Siege of Orchha (1635) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Yet another WP:OR and WP:HOAX article that failed WP:GNG. Sources don't have pages cited, and upon searching the topic, I found no mention of the "Siege of Orchha (1635)" in any sources which makes it fall under WP:OR

• [14] gives no account of Siege of Orchha (1635) only has passing mentions around this event.
• [15] just spun around "Rebellion of Jhujhar Singh" but author's OR makes it "Siege of Orchha (1635)".
• [16] this is not even covering this event but a different Mughal campaign in 1580 and just mentioning the Orchha city. Based Kashmiri (talk) 17:06, 16 May 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 May 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Madhya Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete the tidal wave of Indian battlebollox is very troubling indeed. Either we’re providing readers with reliable information or we’re not. Mccapra (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete, How these articles are even accepted for wikepedia ? Not a single mentioning of how seige went. It does not passes WP: GNG Rawn3012 (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

No. 674 Squadron AAC

No. 674 Squadron AAC (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)

Insufficient independent references to prove notability. PercyPigUK (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Aviation, and United Kingdom. PercyPigUK (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
• Weak keep or merge as it appears to be notable but heavily relies on a single sourcing from RAF. So It could have been a strong keep only if there were more sources for this article. Although merging in Royal Air Force is always an option. Based Kashmiri ^TALK 10:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to RAF Barkston Heath. The squadron has only existed there, so its history forms part of the history of the station. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

List of current yeomanry units of the British Army

List of current yeomanry units of the British Army (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 scope of this list is the same as the scope of two sections of Yeomanry. PercyPigUK (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom. PercyPigUK (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect - unnecessary and duplicates content. Not actually even sure the R is needed. JMWt (talk) 07:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Lahore Front

Lahore Front (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 page is basically a collection of several separate battles fought, for which wiki pages exist. These include the Battle of Burki, Battle of Asal Uttar, Battle of Phillora and Battle of Chawinda. If at all there is a need for consolidation of this data, it has been carried out on the more relevant Indo-Pakistani war of 1965. None of the sources call it the Battle of Lahore. >>> Extorc.talk 18:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. >>> Extorc.talk 18:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Pakistan, India, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. This page is WP:CFORK, separate pieces of content from pages on different battles and treating them as same subject. RangersRus (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

88 (Arracan) Battery Royal Artillery

88 (Arracan) Battery Royal Artillery (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 contains no references to prove notability and is about a company-sized unit PercyPigUK (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom. PercyPigUK (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge and Redirect to 4th Regiment Royal Artillery. Given its long history I'd be very surprised if there wasn't information out there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Abdullah Syafi'i

Abdullah Syafi'i (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 GNG and NBIO. Sources in article (blogspot) and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  04:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. WP:GNG is met. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article (WP:NPOSSIBLE). Clicking on the Find sources: news and books links above shows that sustained coverage of Abdullah Syafi'i exists across many independent reliable sources. I have checked some of the non-English news sources using Google translate. Collectively they add up to significant coverage. The sustained coverage is also an indicator of notability (WP:SUSTAINED).-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Note that on 17 May 2024 WC gudang inspirasi redrafted the article using better sources.^[17]-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Command information newspaper

Command information newspaper (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 really exists (type of internal publication within the US military), but it is questionable if it is notable. While various reliable sources mention it in passing (while discussing something said in some particular issue of one of these), I can't find any significant coverage of the concept in itself. Wikipedia is not a repository of all the internal minutiae of how the US military (or any other military in the world) works. PROD contested by User:Kvng SomethingForDeletion (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Military, and United States of America. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete absence of sources and lack of coverage makes it unready for mainspace. Based Kashmiri ^TALK 10:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment is a soft redirect to Wiktionary an option here? This is just a definition, and there is no evidence that will change. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  Currently, there is no Wiktionary entry for "command information newspaper". Of course, you (or anybody else) could always create one. However, that Wiktionary entry might then be subject to Wiktionary's own review processes to determine whether its inclusion is appropriate. I think it is a bit problematic creating a soft redirect to a Wiktionary entry which doesn't currently exist, and I don't know whether under Wiktionary's own inclusion criteria it would accepted. (My undereducated guess is they probably would decide to keep, but I don't think we should presume that here.) SomethingForDeletion (talk) 09:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Mala Tokmachka

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

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

Yet another Russian invasion of Ukraine content fork. This one is quite particular in the sense that it is made up. There was no fighting in Mala Tokmachka during the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. Ukraine launched this operation to liberate areas south of the line of contact and reach the Azov Sea. Mala Tokmachka was north of the line of contact.

What this article does is group a series of engagements that took place in one of the four fronts of the counteroffensive (the one towards Vasylivka, the Robotyne one in this case, the one towards Berdiansk and the Bakhmut one) under one supposed title. This article is original research. No sources talk of a "Battle of Mala Tokmachka". Splitting content from 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive is also not justified. The aforementioned Robotyne front in which these engagements took place was in fact the one that saw the heaviest fighting during the counteroffensive, specially during the latest stages. Super Ψ Dro 18:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Super Ψ Dro 18:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Mala Tokmachka is one of many towns that saw heavy fighting although not enough to deserve it's own article. Jebiguess (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep but please let me explain why rather than just a short comment

1. Multiple sources talk about a battle around Mala Tokmachka as well as armor and personnel losses from the engagement.

2. This battle was the reason as to why Ukrainian commanders switched tactics during the counteroffensive.

3. Like I said earlier, articles should only be deleted if they have no notability whatsoever. For example, if only a few sources mention the article's topic.

4. Multiple offensives throughout history and that have articles on wikipedia have battles that took place in them.

5. Content is NOT being split from the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive article. The purpose of this article is to specifically go over what happened at Mala Tokmachka and how the result of this battle led to Ukrainian commanders changing their tactics. Ukrainian Wikipedia has already done this for other battles during the counteroffensive. Salfanto (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep Battle is notable for the employment of Western supllied weaponry like M2 Bradley and Leopards 2A6s. Also Rabotyno should have an article. That town was the centre of all the Ucrainian advance during the 2023 Summer offensive.Mr.User200 (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Support deletion or merge to 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. There is no named "Battle of Mala Tokmachka" in reliable sources, and it is not the place of Wikipedia to invent battles where reliable sources have not previously defined them. None of the sources refer to these events collectively, so it is disingenous to portray this series of assaults and clashes as a battle lasting from 7-30 June. Only the early assaults seem notable in any way, but not notable enough for a standalone article at this point. There may be some valuable analysis in the aftermath section here - a place can be found for it somewhere on the counteroffensive page. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

How could this article become more notable? Any help is much appreciated Salfanto (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Articles are not notable in and of themselves; articles cover notable people or notable events. I don't know how you would demonstrate that there was a notable event called the Battle of Mala Tokmachka. For example, you have recently added content about Mykola Melnyk, whom you refer to as a veteran of this battle. But I can't find Mala Tokmachka mentioned once in either the Censor.Net article or the David Axe article. Perhaps this battle is more widely reported on under a different name? SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The Guardian called it "Mala Tokmachka assault" in this article

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/14/ukraine-failed-assault-near-mala-tokmachka-raises-counteroffensive-challenges Salfanto (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

After a review of the sources: assault (or attack, etc.) seems to be a more frequent word than battle in the sources. And events past 9 June would not appear to be part of the same event. So the question seems to come down to whether or not this series of assaults between 7-9 June, where much of the Western armor was lost, warrants its own article, or if it would be more appropriate as a part of the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive article. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 00:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep Large employment and large loss for the first time of Western-provided equipment was notable and heavily reported on at the time. EkoGraf (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep It is properly described, there are sources, it just needs to be expanded and developed. The article is needed and there should be more of them, because there were many battles during the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive, and they do not have any articles, but are only briefly and insufficiently described without division into battles. Unlike the counteroffensives in Kharkiv and Kherson, which have such articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bortak42 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please address notability based on sources, as defined by our guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Edward J. Crawford

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Edward J. Crawford
• Articles for deletion/Edward J. Crawford (2nd nomination)

Edward J. Crawford (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 page was first deleted in 2019 and despite being a WP:REFBOMB this new incarnation shows no additional evidence of notability under GNG or NBIO. Coverage is in school publications; WP:TRADES publications like local business journals and magazines (and without feature-length coverage that would permit the use of trade pubs to establish notability); self-published sources; or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs in longer lists of people. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Military, Louisiana, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Killi Luqman (2017)

Battle of Killi Luqman (2017) (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 GNG as well WP:NEVENT - not WP:LASTING —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Afghanistan. Shellwood (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

German interventions in the Mexican Revolution

German interventions in the Mexican Revolution (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)

Synthetic. There seems to be insufficient treatment of German interference in the Mexican Revolution as a unified concept, only each incident. 📴 Remsense诉 10:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Germany, and Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• Merge into Germany–Mexico relations as ATD. Mccapra (talk) 13:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Rusking Pimentel

Rusking Pimentel (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)

As far as I can tell, there's pretty much zero coverage of this person outside of the routine announcements, and NPOL doesn't extend to everybody working in the office of the state level politicans in question. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Dominican Republic, and New York. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep : I looked into it and found the following new sources which are independent and have significant coverage: [18], [19], [20]. This a notable subject and fulfills the WP:NPOL as well.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

CFAV Haro

CFAV Haro (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 says absolutely nothing about the subject besides identifying its namesake. There is no reason for this article to exist separately from Naval Large Tugboat. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Canada. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

CFAV Barkerville

CFAV Barkerville (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 says absolutely nothing about the subject besides its name. There is no reason for this article to exist separately from Naval Large Tugboat. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Canada. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Mangal

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Battle of Mangal
• Articles for deletion/Battle of Mangal (2nd nomination)

Battle of Mangal (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)

Extreme reliance on WP:RAJ sources, no reliable/good secondary sources. Noorullah (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, Pakistan, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Most of the cited sources are WP:RAJ & outdated sources (WP:AGE MATTERS). Based Kashmiri (talk) 07:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. One reliable source from historian Sandhu with three page on the battle that helps with verification of the content.. All other are poor to self published to unreliable WP:RAJ sources. RangersRus (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note to closer: All the sources from the page were removed by an editor while the AFD nom was in progress. It is an attempt to sabotage other's decision for voting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RangersRus (talk • contribs) 13:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. General Hari Singh Nalwa 1791-1837 (1935) is reliable and has worthwhile information on this battle. UnbiasedSN (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Not one reliable source here. Closer, Autar Singh Sandhu's book was deprecated by an admin involved in SA topics in the RSN-For example, (link to Sandhu's book) is likely an unacceptable source because of its age (1935), publisher, and lack of academic reviews and peer review articles written by its author (at least I didn't find any on a quick search. There is only one book that can be traced back to Autar Singh Sandhu (which is cited here), and it was written in 1935, there is zero information available whatsoever on the author; on the extent of his academic credentials, tenure, educational posts, his bibliography etc. Given that AFDs are supposed to be based on merit and not enumerating votes, far less weight should be accorded to those who say Sandhu's General Hari Singh Nalwa is a RS, because it is undeniably not. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Note to closer: This is the user who, previously mentioned, removed all the sources in an attempt to sabotage the voting process.

  UnbiasedSN (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Fyodor Chernozubov

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

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

No sources and I have been unable to find any. Also does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 02:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Military, and Russia. Curbon7 (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Ck references on his article in ru.wp. Curbon7 (talk) 05:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. General who appears to have plenty of sourcing on Russian Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep based on the awards he received, unless some wants to argue that the ru.wiki sources are not adequate. Mccapra (talk) 06:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  If someone can fix the articles and give citations to them, then they should stay. But I don't speak the language, and the current article dosen't cite any sources, and I couldn't find any.

  Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Grigori Chernozubov

Grigori Chernozubov (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 notability guidelines, no significant coverage. No reason for this article. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 00:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment: The page on Russian Wikipedia seems to be more in-depth and has more sources. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 10:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

There is still no notability, and one "brief" biography isn't really enough to build an entire article.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Weak Keep. He has a plaque dedicated to him, and streets namead after him, should be expanded with transation from Russian version F.Alexsandr (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

You seem to speak the language, I will be happy to withdraw the request if you can bring it up to snuff.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per comments above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: On the one hand, there is no support for deletion. On the other hand, the keep argument is not strong. Let's hear some more thoughts on this before passing a verdict.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 00:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep I can see multiple Google books refs in Russian. Mccapra (talk) 07:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

6th North Carolina Infantry Regiment

6th North Carolina Infantry 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 GNG and NORG. No sources found meeting WP:SIRS, nothing addressing the subject directly and indepth. Article does not indicate any engagements in which the unit was notable.

• Source eval table:

Comments	Source
Blog post/timeline, fails WP:RS, does not have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indpeth	*https://civilwarintheeast.com/confederate-regiments/north-carolina/6th-north-carolina-infantry-regiment/
Enthusiast website, fails WP:RS	*https://www.carolana.com/NC/Civil_War/6th_nc_volunteers_regiment.html
Troop register, fails WP:IS, SIGCOV. Government troop registers do not show notability	*https://www.carolana.com/NC/Civil_War/Register_of_North_Carolina_Troops_1861.pdf
Fails WP:IS, WP:RS, Memories written down in 1901 source states, "WRITTEN BY MEMBERS OF THE RESPECTIVE COMMANDS."	*https://www.carolana.com/NC/Civil_War/Histories_of_the_Several_Regiments_and_Battalions_from_NC_in_the_Great_War_Volume_I_Walter_Clark_1901.pdf
Troop register, fails WP:IS, SIGCOV. Government troop registers do not show notability	Register of North Carolina Troops, 1861, by John Spelman page 13.
Duplicate of above ref	Capt. Lawson Harrill on April 9, 1901, page 786-808 in the "History of the Several Regiments and Battalions from North Carolina in the Great War-'65-Volume 1.

Ping me if IS RS with SIGCOV are found.  // Timothy :: talk  17:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: You might find more sources if you search the 16th North Carolina, which is apparently what this regiment was reorganized as in June 1861. The 16th doesn't seem to have a Wikipedia article, which is interesting given its combat history (Antietam, Gettysburg, Fredericksburg, and others). It might be worth rewriting the article for the 16th North Carolina, noting its origins as the 6th Volunteers. Intothatdarkness 00:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Reply:This sounds like a good solution. If @PaulusHectorMair: feels this is a good solution and wants to pursue it, I will support drafting as "16th North Carolina Infantry Regiment" or another appropriate title. The author is new, I'm not sure they know this discussion is taking place, PaulusHectorMair if you could reply here with your thoughts, even if it is just to let us know you are aware of the discussion.  // Timothy :: talk  00:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  @TimothyBlue, Intothatdarkness, and PaulusHectorMair: - Let's hold up a minute on this. There's a conflation going on here - the "6th North Carolina Volunteers" was the unit that became 16th Regiment per this but there's also a separate 6th North Carolina Infantry Regiment. Per this brief NPS listing it had quite a bit of fighting, and the State of North Carolina published an entire book on this 6th Infantry. Hog Farm _Talk 01:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Reply So if I'm following this right:

  • This article (as currently written) is about the unit that was reorganized into the 16th North Carolina Infantry Regiment. Its currently named "6th North Carolina Infantry Regiment" but it was actually the "6th North Carolina Volunteers"
  • There is another unit "6th North Carolina Infantry Regiment" that is unconnected to the current article or the 16th North Carolina Infantry Regiment.

  Let me know if I've got something wrong.  // Timothy :: talk  01:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Hog Farm, I thought about pinging you, but didn't want to run into the whole canvassing thing with AfD. The ACW isn't one of my major fields, especially Confederate units, so I just did a basic search. I wondered about the Volunteer/Infantry thing, but I've seen it used interchangeably with other units. I of course defer to your expertise. Intothatdarkness 12:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Hello. I am indeed aware of this discussion and have been checking it every few hours or so. I would be open to pursuing an article on the 16th, as this was my original goal. I should have realized sooner that the two regiments were different, and frankly I am questioning my competence for such a silly mistake. PaulusHectorMair (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Making silly mistakes is part of the job... :)  // Timothy :: talk  01:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Now that the unit confusion is sorted, is there sourcing for this unit?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Kashmir (1814)

Battle of Kashmir (1814) (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 page is littered with unreliable sources and relies heavily on WP:Raj sources to promote ethnic heroism and the events do not indicate a victory for the Afghans. This page requires deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Festivalfalcon873 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 6 May 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 May 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Afghanistan, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Three of the sources are WP:RAJ which can be removed as they are only passing by sources attributed by other secondary sources. Not sure what you're referring to as unreliable sources here, would be nice for you to identify, because historians like Hari Ram Gupta are more then WP:RS. Also pages 124-126 clearly show the expedition was a failure and an Afghan victory: [21]. Noorullah (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Further adding from the source: "It took Ranjit Singh four years to overcome his defeat and disgrace suffered in the Kashmir expedition of 1814."[22] (page 128) Noorullah (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete:

Only the sources from WP:RAJ mention any defeat occurring and are clearly required for the final result of this article but do not pass the standards of Wikipedia. Historians that you noted such as Hari Ram Gupta are specific on page 125 that , “Aghar Khan joined Ruhullah Khan. They spread the rumour that the Sikh army had been defeated.” There was no battle against Wazir Fateh Khan mentioned as noted in this article nor any defeat in battle against Wazir Fateh Khan. The article itself is littered with errors as it mentions this is the third campaign or invasion of Ranjit Singh. This is incorrect as there was no campaign in 1812 as noted by Hari Ram Gupta and in 1813 the campaign was a joint collaboration with Wazir Fateh Khan where the former was to give a tribute.

Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The expedition ended in failure, Hari Ram Gupta made this clear on page 126 [23] when he clearly identifies it as a Sikh defeat. The WP:RAJ sources can be removed as I said because they are only passing references while attributed by other secondary sources (such as Hari Ram Gupta). Also the article is being cleaned up, and thus can stay per WP:HEY. Noorullah (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The initial issue of the outcome of this so called battle is not being referenced correctly is still present & or the outcome is using  WP:RAJ source which doesn’t meet requirements of Wikipedia. Two WP:RAJsources are still there in the article in order to present a victory which are not reliable. Therefore it is factually incorrect to say it is passing by reference. The expedition ended in failure, but Gupta makes it clear that any battle taking place was just a rumor on pg 125 that , “Aghar Khan joined Ruhullah Khan. They spread the rumour that the Sikh army had been defeated”in book History Of The Sikhs Vol. V The Sikh Lion of Lahore and does not mention any battle taking place. The author G.S Chhabra you referenced on pg 115 does not mention any direct defeat or battle by Azim Khan either , neither has it been referenced that the losses were heavy. Any mention of any battle taking place in the article is unreliable , Captain Amrinder is not a historian but a politician is thus not a Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

So to point out that the article has significantly improved is inaccurate as the initial concern is not fixed and no improvements have been done to fix it. Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no WP:RAJ sources on the page as per your most recent comment. Gupta clearly states Ranjit Singh was defeated as mentioned above. Noorullah (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note to closer: The above vote is the AFD nom himself, so it should be discarded.
• Keep: Sources are relatively reliable and the article is decently written. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delete found nothing in sources for specific "Battle of Kashmir". Only two scattered lines mention the first Kashmir expedition by Ranjit Singh. Clearly not much coverage, it could be merged in any of the parent articles but doesn't need its own standalone page. Based Kashmiri (talk) 09:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. One of those many Indian WP:SYNTH battle pages. RangersRus (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  Comment: There is plenty of coverage on the expedition. [24] [25] [26]

  Retitled to "Kashmir expedition (1814) so that it can also stay per WP:HEY. Noorullah (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  Article has also been significantly expanded to constitute remaining under WP:HEY with numerous other sources also being added. Noorullah (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  pinging to @RangersRus and @Based Kashmiri per above. Noorullah (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Noorullah21 I'd not oppose moving it to the "Kashmir expedition" or "First Kashmir expedition" as per sources. However the issue of WP:SIGCOV is refraining me from striking my vote. Also the third source [27] doesn't appear to be reliable, as Shashikant Nishant Sharma is not a historian and the publisher is also questionable. The rest of the sources don't have significant coverage. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 10:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please do not move page while AfD is open.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

List of battles in Croatia

List of battles in Croatia (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:UNSOURCED. Follow-up to List of battles in Belgium (deleted recently). NLeeuw (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Croatia. NLeeuw (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep clearly passes WP:NLIST, the lack of sourcing is not an issue considering it's a verifiable list article. SportingFlyer T·C 22:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to List of battles by geographic location. Unsourced page. Toadette^Edit! 08:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  That article is also almost completely WP:UNSOURCED, so that won't solve the issues. I may nominate that list as well, sooner or later, but I decided to begin with the spin-offs first. NLeeuw (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Category:Battles involving Croatia and its five sub-categories cover this. A list article is more useful than categories, since columns can be made, listing the year and additional information to be easier to sort. Dream Focus 08:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  That's different: battles involving Croatia ≠ battles in Croatia. We do not categorise battles by location per WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN.

  If we want a list of battles involving Croatia, analogous to Category:Battles involving Croatia and analogous to List of wars involving Croatia, we can. But then this whole article needs to be Renamed, Rescoped, rigorously Purged of inapplicable battles, and Re-populated with applicable battles which actually involved the Republic of Croatia (and any commonly recognised historical predecessors), including battles outside of Croatian territory involving the Croatian military.

  That is so much fuss - because it's an entirely different scope - that we better WP:TNT this and start over, based on the actual contents of Category:Battles involving Croatia (and recycling some sources from its articles), and not the WP:UNSOURCED current contents of this article. NLeeuw (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  Good point. I struct out my vote. I wasn't aware of the rule against grouping things by location. Dream Focus 13:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  I also only found it a few days ago, to be honest. I've been working on this category tree for some time, currently proposing to merge, rename or delete a couple of them at WP:CFD, should you be interested (see 4 May 2024). NLeeuw (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment This was my accept at AfC. I dismissed the previous challenge of 'unsourced' that led to it being draftified, as that didn't apply to a list, however I was unaware of WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN so in hindsight, I would not have accepted it. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  I wasn't aware of it either until recently. At Talk:List of battles by geographic location#Splitting Proposal, I've just outlined some CfD and AfD jurisprudence on accepting or deleting categories or lists/articles on battles by location. Long story short: CfD categorically (pun intended) rejects them, AfD often accepts them, but for different reasons and under certain conditions. The two project spaces are thus at odds. NLeeuw (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see no consensus here yet. I'll just mention that similar articles nominated at AFD involving different countries have closed as "Delete".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• Update As Liz noted, List of battles in Albania has been deleted for the same reason. Simultaneously, we are phasing out "battles in Fooland" categories (e.g. Category:Battles in Uganda was Purged and Renamed to Category:Battles of the Uganda–Tanzania War; Category:Battles in Latvia was Manually Merged, etc.). NLeeuw (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Marcocapelle and HouseBlaster: due to their involvement in related CFD discussions about "Battles in X". Liz requested more participation. NLeeuw (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

List of battles in Algeria

List of battles in Algeria (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:UNSOURCED. Follow-up to List of battles in Belgium (deleted recently). NLeeuw (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Algeria. NLeeuw (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment We do not categorise battles by location per WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. NLeeuw (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• Update List of battles in Albania has been deleted for the same reason. NLeeuw (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Where are all of our AFD regulars? We need more AFD discussion participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Marcocapelle and HouseBlaster: due to their involvement in related CFD discussions about "Battles in X". Liz requested more participation. NLeeuw (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom, plus the purpose of this list would seem to be better achieved with a category as per WP:AOAC, WP:DOAL and WP:LISTPURP. Bgv. (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet

Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet (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)

Poor attempt of the author to keep Pala Tibetan War from AFD. Same content with different title. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala Tibetan War.Imperial^[AFCND] 14:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, China, and India. Imperial^[AFCND] 14:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet has no issues like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala Tibetan War as you said.
  This article is Notable and has been given significant coverage by reliable sources.

• Devapāla came into conflict with Tibet, there is nothing impossible in this because Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-srong-lda-btsan and his son Mu-teg-btsan-po subdued India and forced Raja Dharma- pala to submit. Devapāla also may have come to clash with them and defeated them.
• Devapāla might have come into conflict with Tibet; there is nothing impossible in this because Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-Srong-Ida-Btsan and his son Mu-teg-Btsan-po subdued India and forced Dharma- pāla to submit. Devapāla also may have clashed with them and defeated them

Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Please stop listing down this big {{tq}} here. It was already a mess at the earlier discussion. Comment down if you've any possible arguments that could potentially save the article. I am pretty sure you haven't read what WP: NOTABILITY, and this reflects everywhere in the AFD. Long paragraphs are not the factor that determines whether it passes GNG or not. And I can see you've duplicated the text twice here. Imperial^[AFCND] 19:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

This event is notable and has received significant coverage in Reliable Sources (WP:RS) and it passes WP:GNG & WP:SIGCOV and this isn't WP:OR since reliable sources mention the event as Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet.
Also what do you mean by "And I can see you've duplicated the text twice here."?? I gave you two reliable sources which mentions the event in a similar way. Based Kashmiri (talk) 04:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Based Kashmiri, what you've done is exposed plagiarism. They mention the event in a similar way because one source plagiarized the other, not because this is a conventional way to write about this. -- asilvering (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

As per the WP:DEL-REASON guideline, there is no reason to delete this article and I have provided multiple reliable sources about this event here in the replies below. Based Kashmiri (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Do we have evidence that one of these sources plagiarised the other? Cortador (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

References

• Delete. This is obviously a recreation of the previously deleted article. It does have a better title, in that it is no longer claiming there was a "Pala Tibetan War", but this is the same issue. We can write about this hypothetical conflict (one of the sources you list above even says "might have"!) on Devapala (Pala dynasty). If eventually we find sources to justify a separate article, we can spin out out from Devapala (Pala dynasty). But we did not find those sources in the last AfD, so I doubt we will find them here either. While I'm looking at that article, I note that we also have the sentences There is nothing impossible as the Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-srong-lda-btsan and his son Mu-teg-btsan-po subdued India and forced Dharmapāla to submit. Therefore, Devapāla must have also clashed with and defeated the Tibetan kings. Not only does this not follow the sources (our article says "must have", while neither source says so), it is obviously plagiarism. -- asilvering (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  This is not a recreation of the previously deleted article, also this article doesn't have any issues like that article, if you think there is any issue in this article then list them down.
  The previous article had issues with the "Dharmapāla's Conflict with Tibetans" section and the "Conflict with Nepal" section, which is excluded from this article. This article focuses on the conflict between Devapala and Tibet, with reliable sources mentioning the event as "Devapala's Conflict with Tibet." The main problem with the previous article was the uncited title, but this article provides reliable sources to support its claim.Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  I don't mean "it literally contains the exact same words as the previous article". If that were the case, it could just be nominated for speedy deletion. I mean "it is in effect the same article with the same problems", which is true. At least one of the two reliable sources you brought up above appears to be plagiarized, so not only is this not two separate sources with in-depth coverage, it's only one source with very brief coverage. This can easily be written about on Devapala (Pala dynasty) if necessary. (But I'd advise against plagiarising a plagiarised source to do so.) -- asilvering (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  This article cannot be deleted for the reasons you've provided, as per the Wikipedia deletion policy WP:DEL-REASON.

  Additionally, here are some additional reliable sources about this event:

  • (1)
  • (2)
  • (3)
  • (4)

  Based Kashmiri (talk) 11:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  These sources do not support your case. -- asilvering (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Then explain how? Also you still haven't given any reasons to delete this article from as per the Wikipedia's deletion policy WP:DEL-REASON. Based Kashmiri (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  The reason for deletion is simple, and it is the most common deletion reason that exists: this does not pass WP:GNG. We need multiple reliable, secondary sources that discuss the topic in depth. -- asilvering (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

:Delete per asilvering and Imperial Okmrman (talk) 04:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock. Owen× ☎ 05:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

They do not have any valid reason to delete the article, Please provide a valid reason from WP:DEL-REASON.Based Kashmiri (talk) 08:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Okmrman And I just checked your User contributions and noticed you have voted for deletion for every single AFD you had discovered EVERY MINUTE, without even reading anything.Based Kashmiri (talk) 08:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Both @Asilvering and @ImperialAficionado haven't provided any valid reason to delete this article from WP:DEL-REASON, how can you agree with them? Based Kashmiri (talk) 08:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete , this is simply not notable and has wrongly been re-created as an article with a different name. If this goes on a topic ban would be in order for the editor. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Devapāla's Campaigns against Pratiharas

Devapāla's Campaigns against Pratiharas (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 copy of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala invasion of Kannauj. Same content, fails WP:GNG, poorly found in reliable sources. Part of Tripartite struggle, can be added to it. Imperial^[AFCND] 14:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Bangladesh, and India. Imperial^[AFCND] 14:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Not even a single thing here is copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala invasion of Kannauj. That article was about Dharmapal's invasion of Kannauj and this article is about Devapal's campaign against the Pratiharas, Plus this has nothing to do with the Tripartite Struggle and this definitely doesn't fail WP:GNG. All of the sources cited here are completely reliable.

Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

No results for "Devapāla's Campaigns against Pratiharas" in Google scholar, JSTOR [28], and literally zero result from Google keyword searching. Hardly found few sources (including what present in the article), that barely mentioned no more than two or three lines about the so called "Campaign". And passes GNG? See WP:SIGCOV. Imperial^[AFCND] 15:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• This article is very notable and has been given significant coverage in reliable sources therefore it passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.
• The Gurjara lords against whom Devapāla fought must have been the Pratīhāra rulers. It is possible that Nagabhața II tried to assert his power after the death of Dharmapāla and if, as some scholars believe, he transferred his capital to Kanauj, he must have achieved some success. But Devapāla soon re-established the Pala supremacy, and it was possibly after his (Devapāla's) successful campaign against the Pratihāras that he advanced to the Hūņa and Kamboja princi- palities. Nāgabhața's son, Ramabhadra, probably also had his kingdom invaded by Devapāla. The next Pratihāra king Bhoja also, in spite of his initial success, suffered reverses at the hands of Devapāla, and could not restore the fortunes of his family so long as the Pala emperor was alive. Thus Devapāla successfully fought with three generations of Pratihāra rulers, and maintained the Pala supremacy in Northern India.

Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

"It is notable because I said so." Industrial Insect (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Ignore WP:RS which has significant coverage about the topic of the article and just say "It is notable because I said so.", wow.
The article is notable for several reasons. First, it has significant coverage from WP:RS. Second, It passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. I hope this helps clarify why the article meets the notability criteria. Based Kashmiri (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep the article appears to be successfully meet the criteria set forth in Wikipedia's Notability guidelines and the issues raised in the nomination do not appear to be evident within the article itself.

Khotanese26 (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete Two mundane keep votes so far, one from the creator and another from a very new user (?!). For my money, I'd say to delete, as the sources presented in the article, and with my own lookups, led to nothing of substantial use that can justify a rigid keep. X (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Bahawalnagar incident

Bahawalnagar incident (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. Should be either merged or deleted. Event doesn't require its own article. Wikibear47 (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep I'd argue it's pretty significant Claire 26 (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Police, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: This easily meets WP:GNG as the incident has garnered significant press coverage, which has continued even a month after its occurrence. Moreover, the lasting impact of the incident is evident as the government has initiated an investigation to look into the matter. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 14:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delete That was a minor clash, with no casualty. Resolve by both parties on the same day. You may move the content in Bahawalnagar, Bahawalnagar District or the Controversies section in Punjab Police (Pakistan). You can also consider List of cases of law enforcement brutality in Pakistan.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet. Three different Redirect/Merge target articles have been mentioned, we have to get that down to one suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Urozhaine

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

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

This is getting excessive. Yet another content fork article of a non-battle in this war. Uncountable such articles have been deleted already, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Tokmak, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Chuhuiv, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Dvorichna, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Krasnohorivka, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Russian offensive, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Orlivka. Measures should be taken against users continously recreating content forks and lacking the capacity of discerning if a topic is notable or not.

Fighting at Urozhaine is not notable nor relevant enough for having an article of its own. It can be covered in any other article such as Southern Ukraine campaign or Urozhaine. There was already fighting in the village last year and it was covered at 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. The content of this article is already pretty ridiculous, it is said "Little is known for the battle itself" so I don't know why do we have an article for it ("as it just started"; see WP:DEADLINE). This battle over a small settlement is very unlikely to become notable in the future, and if it does the time for having an article will be then and not now. Also a source from 25 April 2024 is given to confirm territorial changes of the battle that supposedly started on 1 May. Super Ψ Dro 12:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Super Ψ Dro 12:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
• Clerical comment: Article was nominated for deletion (AFD) less than 2 hours after creation, with no clear WP:BEFORE considerations. As of this comment, article is sourced two secondary reliable sources. WP:RAPID attempt at deletion, partially using WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST rational in said rapid deletion attempt. This is not a comment regarding a keep or delete, just clerical to establish a brief timeline. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter. The article is clearly not notable, so it should be deleted. I don't get the "WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST" thing, I have just shown that this topic area is prone to repeated creation of non-notable content. Super Ψ Dro 07:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• I support deletion of this article per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The term "Battle of Urozhaine" does not exist in reliable sources. The ISW-CTP citations here say nothing of a "battle of" or "battle for" the location and only make passing mentions of combat in the region. The NYT citation here does not mention Urozhaine either. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 04:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep Better sourcing is needed rather than an article deletion Salfanto (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Salfanto has a huge record of creating problematic articles. Evidence is their talk page full of notices [29]. I am fairly convinced Salfanto does not have a good grasp of what notability is and they are voting to keep because deleting articles = bad. Super Ψ Dro 18:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

What I am trying to say is that editors should put more effort into improving articles rather than nominating to delete them all the time. Articles should only be deleted if they have no notability whatsoever. For example, if only a few sources mention the article's topic. Salfanto (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete There is little to no mention of notability in the article and the only information is basically “we don’t know because it’s still going on”/“it’s too early to tell” Cowinatree (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Carrier Air Group SIX

Carrier Air Group SIX (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 evidence that this formation meets the GNG. Of the currently-cited sources, 2, 3, and 5 are self-published, not independent, and not reliable (except for direct quotes from Navy documents in source 3). Source 1 [30] seems to list only establishment and disestablishment dates (not sigcov), which is more than I expected from a source supposedly covering "1910-1920" – it seems the citing editor made a typo, the citation should read "1910-2010". Source 4 [31] doesn't seem to mention this unit at all. In sum, there are 0 sources that count toward the GNG, and I couldn't find anything in a before search. Toadspike (talk) 10:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Toadspike (talk) 10:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

This can also be redirected to List of United States Navy aircraft wings. Toadspike (talk) 10:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Subject is notable. WP:BEFORE seems to have overlooked Moroson, Lundstrom, Hammel, and books on the Battle of the Eastern Solomons or the Battle of Philippine Sea. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  I am willing to withdraw this nomination if you can properly cite those books in the article. With that information alone, it is very hard to know what books you are talking about. For example, I don't know how to find a book by "Moroson", and could not find one with such a name on either battle you mentioned. Toadspike (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Bajirao's Konkan Campaign

Bajirao's Konkan Campaign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article is entirely based on original research and the synthesis of multiple events involving various states. It discusses military conflicts labeled as "Bajirao's Konkan Campaign," incorporating entities such as the Siddis, Nizam of Hyderabad, the British East India Company, and the Portuguese Empire. However, no reliable sources consider all these entities as belligerent allies against the Marathas during Bajirao I's campaign. The creator has conflated conflicts involving Bajirao with those of other kingdoms/states/entities and inserted "Maratha victory" in the infobox, despite the differing outcomes recorded in historical records. It's unclear what the author intended, but the content of the article largely duplicates information already present in numerous parent articles. This attempt seems to glorify an entity through the use of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, combining unrelated conflicts. Imperial^[AFCND] 16:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, India, Portugal, and England. Imperial^[AFCND] 16:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep or draft I have spent days in it so please I would request the closer to draft this page if not keep, I have added reliable sources covering this campaign, if there are possible OR and SYNTH then I'd fix it.

Mnbnjghiryurr (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

 Comment:If articles of this kind fall within the scope, we could also maintain an article titled Alexander the Great's Punjab Campaign, alongside Indian campaign of Alexander the Great and Battle of Hydaspes. Ironically, this would involve including both the Achaemenid Empire and the Pauravas in a single infobox!! That would afford everyone an opportunity to express their creativity, but this isn't the appropriate venue for it.--Imperial^[AFCND] 16:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. 6 sources on the page. 2 strong sources are from historians Sinha and Sardesai. 19 page coverage from Sinha and 4 page coverage from Sardesai. I can not verify other 4 sources but with two reliable sources that the page took its help from, is enough for keeping the page and it passes the general notability guidelines. Page does need improvement too. RangersRus (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Gauda–Gupta War

Gauda–Gupta 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)

If the article focuses solely on the conflicts between the Gauda kingdom and the Guptas, it lacks WP:RS and historians do not consider these mutual campaigns as a single state of war, known as the "Gauda—Gupta War(s)". If we include the mutual conflicts between the Guptas and Gaudas in the article's scope, it becomes a result of original research and the synthesis of multiple conflicts. The conflicts involving Ishanavarman, Jivitagupta I, and Gopachandra are mentioned, but figures such as Kumaragupta III, Dharmaditya, and Samacharadeva are not addressed in the War section, but in the infobox. Upon reviewing the sources, authors are uncertain about the statements, with a weak consensus. In essence, the article combines non-notable military conflicts, cited by low-quality sources, involving different kingdoms—the Maukhari dynasty and the Later Gupta dynasty—against the Gauda kingdom, and labels it as the "Gauda—Gupta War". It adds minor conflicts to create the impression of significance, which is not justified. The article fails to meet GNG and contains original research. There are significant issues to address, AFD is limiting the discourse. Imperial^[AFCND] 13:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Bangladesh, and India. Imperial^[AFCND] 13:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep @ImperialAficionado There's no synthesis and OR, every cited source comes to the conclusion that Maukharis and later Guptas fought against Gaudas on behalf of the Gupta emperor.

• It's quite likely that the war of Ishanavarman against the Gaudas whom he had forced to take shelter on the sea shore and the victory of Jivitagupta I over the enemies who stood on the sea-shore, refer to the expeditions launched by the Maukharis and the Later Guptas, separately or jointly, against the kings of Bengal discussed above who had declared their independence of the empire and had assumed the imperial title. Probably, the Maukhari and the Later Gupta rulers undertook these campaigns in the name of the Gupta emperor who was their nominal overlord, though their success increased their own power, and not of the emperor. From Goyal (1967).

• The people of Gauda (W. Bengal) also achieved prominence, and a Maukhari chief claims to have defeated them. The Later Guptas also fought against some enemies who lived on the sea-shore. The reference in both cases may be to the kings of Bengal mentioned above, and the military campaigns of the Maukharis and the Later Guptas might have been undertaken, jointly or severally, on behalf of the Gupta emperor, their nominal overlord. Majumdar (1970).

Quoting these two should be enough. The other sources are right there, you should have thoroughly verified it before proposing AFD for this article. According to nom it's cited with low quality sources seriously? As far as I know the works of S.R. Goyal, R.C. Majumdar, K.K Dasgupta, H.K Barpujari and others are qualitatively reliable. If nom has any doubt for the cited sources then they should verify those at RSN.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonharojjashi (talk • contribs)

@Jonharojjashi, cited with low quality sources is referring my earlier statement in the proposal authors are uncertain about the statements, with a weak consensus, take the time to read the whole proposal reason. The weakness of the statements from the sources are evident from the above quotes, presented by yourself above. It's quite likely that...Probably, the Maukhari and the Later Gupta rulers un... from Goyal and The reference in both cases may be to the kings of Bengal mentioned above...and the Later Guptas might have been undertaken, jointly or from Majumdar. Keeping this weak statements aside, surprisingly I couldn't find any latest records about the event(s).--Imperial^[AFCND] 17:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

If that's the issue then the article body should reflect the sources whether they have "weak consensus" or not. And that is what I have done in The War section. From what I have seen, many articles are made after being based on even less consensus, like Sasanian–Kushan Wars, you should also see my question regarding this at the help desk [32], and here the sources do say "possibly" so I can do the same in Infobox and article body (basically I'm reflecting what the sources say). Again I don't get what the problem is, just because sources hold weak consensus thus they are of low quality? And you didn't answer where does it contains synthesis and OR. Looks like you didn't even read the article and verify it with the cited sources and stuck to the possilikely words. -- Jonharojjashi (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Dear. That's why I said AFD is limiting the discourse, I need a bigger space to expose the whole mess within the article. And no need to drag Sasanian–Kushan Wars here. Take that to the respective talk section if you have any problem with it. Imperial^[AFCND] 17:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

No that should not be a reason, AFD is what exactly for highlighting all the cons of the article, there's no limiting discourse. Just say you can't show where this article contains synthesis, OR and weak sources. You're free to expose any drawbacks of this page. There's no need to be in the grey area. I'd assume that you're either procrastinating or failing to prove your points.

I'm not dragging Sasanian–Kushan Wars here instead, I cleared your doubts regarding "weak consensus" through it. Don't just throw away it by saying no need to drag.

For other voters: Note that there's an AFD discussion going on their own page [33] and also note that the nom hasn't clearly provided anything to show this article holds any OR, synthesis and weak sources. Jonharojjashi (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Another WP:SYNTH mess. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Two reliable sources that I can verify the content on the page are from historians R. C. Majumdar and K.K. Dasgupta. Some other sources though are from historians like Sailendra Nath Sen but I can not verify them. Taking the two reliable sources that help with verification, I feel this page passes the general notability guidelines. RangersRus (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Huliaipole

Battle of Huliaipole (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 named event of this name in sources. Events not independently notable to warrant a stand alone article (GNG/NOTNEWS). The brief incursion into Huliaipole is already sufficiently covered at Southern Ukraine campaign. Ongoing shelling is sufficiently covered at Huliaipole. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:21, 2 May 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 May 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: As the principal author of the article, I would be remiss not to comment that I've put a lot of work into this and would be devastated to see it all thrown in the trash container. I'm not opposed to less notable events being cut down (previous edits have already been made by others to this effect) but I would ask that if this moves towards deletion, that relevant information be merged into relevant articles. Not voting either way right now, just asking that participants take this into consideration. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
• @Super Dromaeosaurus, RadioactiveBoulevardier, Jebiguess, and HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: Pinging previous talk page participants. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose deletion - The article is well-sourced and extensive, and the sources showcase that there is more than enough for an article (Thus I strongly disaagree with Cinderella's statement that the "Events [are] not independently notable"). However, I think concerns about the article name are valid in relation to the article content. Thus, I propopse that insteads of deleting the article, we should rename it to Huliaipole during the Russian invasion of Ukraine or History of Huliaipole (2022–2024) to save the valuable work done for the article, while clarifying that this is the history of a certain city during a war instead of a single battle. Applodion (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• Rename into Huliaipole during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There is significant coverage of this town during the war and the battles for it, but I don't think any individual battle for the city or it's outskirts is notable for its own article. I also think that describing the city's role as one continuous battle is disingenuous; renaming the article to the the history of the town during the war and the role it played as one of the major cities on the southern front more than establishes notability while keeping the bulk of the information. Jebiguess (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose deletion. Deletion seems unnecessary, but I think changing the article’s name would be fine. Professor Penguino (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support merge of encylopedic content to Southern Ukraine campaign and Huliaipole, if not already present there.

There exists no named "Battle of Huliaipole" in reliable sources, as Cinderella157 has mentioned, and I agree with Jebiguess that portraying these events as a battle is "disingenuous"; there appears to be strong consensus that, at least, the current title should not be retained.

The real debate lies in what to do with the content of the page, as the notability of the events has been called into question. Let us analyze the content of this article. One could probably divide most of it into two categories: (1) bombardment of the city of Huliaipole and (2) combat on the front line in some villages south of the city. Honestly speaking, much of the latter probably does not belong here - there is excessive undue mention of places a significant distance from the city, such as Novodarivka, Mala Tokmachka, and Velyka Novosilka.

With respect to the former category: the city lies close to a front line that has been largely stable for two years, so it is understandably a regular target of artillery bombardment. We do not have similar articles for other such frequently attacked places, nor should we be expected to – at a certain point, the 50th instance of "Russian forces shelled Huliaipole" is simply not notable enough for inclusion – this content should be dramatically condensed. Consider, for example, the sections for March 2024 and April 2024, and then read WP:NOTEVERYTHING. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Merge useful content without redirect per SaintPaulOfTarsus. Agree with nom that the article is yet another non-battle. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 03:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An analysis of the sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The page has over 300 references. Could you clarify what should be analyzed, and what the purpose of the analysis would be? SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

An article typically needs two or three solid sources providing significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. Analyzing such two or three refs among those 300 will likely go a long way towards establishing notability. Owen× ☎ 22:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Owenx: The problem of this article is not really one of notability or significant coverage of the "Battle of Huliaipole" itself – We cannot establish notability for an event has been conceptualized and given a name by Wikipedia editors alone, and does not exist anywhere else. Nearly all participants in this discussion, by my count, are of the mind that the current title is not ideal because this page is essentially a patchwork of nearly every article that happens to mention Huliapole in any war-related context. Take, for example:

On 5 November, Ivan Fedorov gave an interview with Ukrinform, in which he claimed that detained residents of Melitopol were being used by the Russian military to dig trenches around Huliaipole.

from this source:

How many residents of the Melitopol district are in captivity? Daily statistics change. More than a hundred Someone is already in a pre-trial detention center in Moscow, someone is digging trenches near Huliaipole. They are looking for partisans, but cannot find them.

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 07:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: For the record, I was never happy about the title, I raised issues with it years ago and even before it was created. This article was effectively a content fork from the article on the city, as coverage of how the war affected the city quickly came to overrun the rest of the article. The title simply stuck out of inertia, as I was the only person that stayed around to update the article in the long term, and my attempts to gain consensus on a move or merge went nowhere. I'd still support either of these options, as proposed above. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The title is irrelevant for AfD. The closing admin will likely ignore !votes that are based solely on the inappropriateness of the title. The only question before us in this AfD is: could the events described in the body of the article meet our notability guidelines (e.g., WP:NEVENT), based on existing sources, and is this notability independent of that of more general events, such as those described in Southern Ukraine campaign? If, and only if, the answer to both questions is Yes, the article will be kept, and discussion may then commence about giving it a better title. At this point, the title should be seen as a placeholder. Debating it here is a distraction. Owen× ☎ 10:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

What is pertinent from Grnrchst's comment is that this is an inappropriate content fork and therefore not independently notable. The metric of how many sources are cited does not of itself establish notability. Almost all of these are WP:NEWSORG and none are peer reviewed (that I can see). Those I do not class as NEWSORG are think tanks, predominantly ISW that makes regular summary updates of events and are only a short step away from being a NEWSORG in spirit. Most of these sources make only the briefest passing mentions of Huliaipole. I sampled three citations (100 Ukrainska Pravda 4 July 2023, 200 Ukrainska Pravda 23 December 2023 and 300 France24 22 May 2023). They each make a single mention of Huliaipole:

• [Russian forces] ... deployed artillery to attack more than 30 settlements, including Levadne, Olhivske, Malynivka, Huliaipole, Bilohirya (Zaporizhzhia Oblast); Zmiivka, Lvove, Tokarivka, Antonivka, Veletenske, Stanislav (Kherson Oblast) and the city of Kherson.
• Around 20 civilian settlements came under Russian artillery and mortar fire, including Poltavka, Huliaipole, Charivne, Mala Tokmachka and Robotyne (Zaporizhzhia Oblast).
• The team [of Ukrainian volunteers] has been setting up a shelter in Huliaipole, a devastated town in the Zaporizhzhia region.

Collectively, these sources are an indiscriminate collection of routine reporting that lack depth and produce no evidence of lasting independent notability. They do not establish WP:NEVENT. There is some relevance to the article on Huliaipole and the southern Ukraine campaign but that which is noteworthy from such reporting has already been effectively summarised in those articles. This is not a named event there is no reasonable rationale to maintain the article as a place-holder. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• Move content to History of Huliaipole, an article that can be created. I completely oppose Huliaipole during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, an unprecedented format article for the topic area that could start the creation of lots of content forks for almost any town in Ukraine. I will rather have the article and its information deleted than such an article be created. Super Ψ Dro 18:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  Articles such as Zaporizhzhia strikes (2022–present), Kyiv strikes (2022–present), and Mykolaiv strikes (2022–present) do exist. If the information on the near-daily shelling and drone strikes must be retained, a compromise could be to create a similar article for Huliaipole and merge the other information elsewhere. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

So far that kind of articles only exists for major cities. Lowering the threshold to a small town like Huliaipole could also ignite the creation of many content forks. Personally I don't believe it is a good idea. Even if they're well-written, I don't think we should have this kind of articles for places in Ukraine unless they're prominent. Super Ψ Dro 16:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or keep without prejudice to a moving the page? Move is not a valid AfD outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 22:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Further comment: merging with an uncreated article is not possible; that would be a cut-and-paste move. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Michael Breen (human rights activist)

Michael Breen (human rights activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Contested PROD for individual who fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. WP:BEFORE search does not turn up significant coverage. Existing article is a WP:REFBOMB of sources that fail to demonstrate notability. Sources 1/23, 6, 7/9/11, 15 and 25 are non-independent press releases or official bios, 2, 3 and 19 are trivial mentions in long lists; 4, 10, 14, 21 and 28 32 are passing mentions in coverage of other topics, 5 and 8, 27, 33 and 34 are WP:INTERVIEWS and thus primary sources; 13, 16, 17, 20, 22, 26, 29, 30 and 31 are self-authored material by the subject. 24 does not mention the subject. Only 12 might qualify as SIGCOV, but we need multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Delete: The editor who created this article also created Human Rights First which is Breen's organization. Only edits theyve made. And the HRF in their username stands for Human Rights First- right? Appears to be undisclosed COI. Should I put my concerns on the talk page of Human Rights First? Looking at the related pages here we could also be looking at WP:SOCK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaskedSinger (talk • contribs) 05:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

My strong delete wasn't enough? ;) MaskedSinger (talk) 06:01, 23 May 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 delete‎. While keep !votes have a narrow majority in a raw vote count, arguments in favor of deletion are much more solidly grounded in existing guidelines. In particular, while keep arguments asserted that notability has been established via coverage in RS, they have not provided examples of sources that cover the entire set of "Americans killed..." as required by WP:LISTN. A late redirect proposal did not gain immediate traction; I decided against relisting to allow for its consideration on the basis that there is no current list of Americans at the suggested target page and thus the redirect seems unlikely to win consensus. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

List of Americans killed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine

List of Americans killed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine (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)

Mainly due to lack of notability, WP:NOTNEWS, and the obvious bias issue in having this list. In addition the list contained original research listing the Telegram channel 'TrackANaziMerc' as a source since February. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Interesting topic.... would have never searched for it on my own. There seems to be substantial sourcing for this if it wants to be improved no? Moxy🍁 20:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

There are the only two sources I could find that treat the topic as a group: [34] (paywalled so can't review) and [35], and this latter source isn't very in depth about it. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I've been able to read the Washington Post link thanks to a gift I was sent: I don't believe the Washington Post is dealing with solely Americans having been killed in the war, but rather the idea and reasons behind Americans serving overseas in Ukraine - the Washington Post article is more suited for foreign fighters in the Russo-Ukrainian War rather than this list. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Military, Russia, Ukraine, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep, I got a proposal to change the topic to "List of Americans killed in the Russo-Ukrainian War" , which @EkoGraf, the creator of the list, doesn't oppose to it, maybe we could change the topic first before we nominate to delete?

PoisonHK _{Sapiens dominabitur astris} 14:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The title/period isn't the issue with the list. Also speedy keep cannot apply here. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, also article is incomplete and need expantion. If the title is changed to List of Americans killed in the Russo-Ukrainian War we should include American killed during the War in Donbas 2014-2021.Mr.User200 (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep it pass notability and WP:RS with sources as The Guardian, Politico and Yahoo News. Shadow4dark (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  But do they deal with the topic as a group like this? Routine news coverage doesn't establish notability of the topic as a list. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Replace "Routine news" with better sources, it pass clearly notability. Shadow4dark (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  What? Traumnovelle (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep as article creator, notability established as mentioned by RS, also agree to article expansion to include those from the Donbas War. EkoGraf (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Regarding lack of notability, NOTNEWS, and bias, I disagree with all three. I think it's pretty notable and informative for Americans and others to known how many died in a war they heavily funded. NOTNEWS I think is exempt in a list. To achieve completeness a list often must exhaust news coverage. And bias, I agree and disagree, but don't believe it's a problem. Making a list of Americans killed only shows coverage bias, similar to how there are so many pages and information about alleged Russian war crimes and negative stuff about Russia but very few covering the other side, Ukraine. That's mostly because most editors show more interest in writing about negative Russian things and because most sources that cover the alleged Ukrainian crimes are suppressed in Wikipedia. In such cases, I think the better solution is simply to also write about the other side, not remove the favored side. Thus, a list of other foreign nationals killed would also be important. Btw, doesn't such global list exist? If it does, then the American-only list should be merged in it and not stick out.

Regarding the alleged WP:OR, I haven't checked. If there are problems, then they should be solved, but I don't think deleting the page just because of it is ideal. I'm not following this thread, so ping me if you want a reply. Alexis Coutinho (talk) ^[ping me] 21:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

There's the exact same routine coverage of non-American foreign civilians/soldiers killed in Ukraine during the current Russo-Ukraine war.

The only similar article I could find was list of deaths during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which includes people with Wikipedia articles, for the few that don't have one they appear to be important politicians or military officials. @Alexiscoutinho Traumnovelle (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

👍. Regarding the other list being of people with articles, I think it would be unfair to omit people without articles or military career (here). 🤔 Alexis Coutinho (talk) ^[ping me] 15:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I would say it's to have a US specific list about a war being fought in Eastern Europe by two European countries. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, Serves an informative purpose, seems to have decent coverage Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 00:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per others, particularly Alexis Coutinho. Needs some improvement but shouldn't be deleted Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  Keep The article serves a historical purpose Salfanto (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delete All Keep votes above sum up to ILIKEIT, ITSUSEFUL, and THEREMUSTBESOURCES. None give an actual policy-based reason to keep. Per nominator, there is no coverage of this topic as a group, only individual instances. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  I will also say that there are several other lists for other countries that should likely also be deleted unless good sources are found for those countries. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as per nomination. The fact this is simply a list, not an in-depth article, also hobbles this entry.TH1980 (talk) 01:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails NLIST, sources do not show there is WP:SIRS discussing this as a group. List contains only non-notable entries (one exception), serves no purpose per WP:CLN. Keep votes above are ILIKEIT and provide no sources showing this had been discussed as a group or guidelines showing why the should be kept.  // Timothy :: talk  19:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It seems like there is a lack of policy-based reasons on both sides of this discussion. ITSUSEFUL isn't a strong defense but neither is the proposition of bias because we don't have articles on soldiers who have been killed from other countries. There are always other articles that have yet to be written.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NLIST, and as a content fork of List of deaths during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I agree with Liz that there is not a lot of policy-based rationale on either side here. Conyo14 (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Not WP:LISTCRUFT, has enough RS, and serves a historical purpose. Florificapis (talk) 02:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete - The only arguments that would make this not WP:INDISCRIMINATE would be crossing into WP:NOTMEMORIAL territory. The basic problem I have with the list is that lists of victims for tragedies like wars and genocides are much too long to be made into articles consistently. We can't accept articles that are just millions and millions of names (as a "list of Jews killed during the holocaust) would be, and so we also shouldn't accept articles just because they're shorter. The only thing that makes American deaths notable in a way that Ukrainian deaths aren't is the fact that there is less of them? I think that's a repugnant conclusion to reach, and so the whole idea should be tossed in the trash. BrigadierG (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: This is like the lists of 9/11 victims that pop up every so often in AfD; most of these people aren't otherwise notable. Looking at the list even 10 yrs from now, most still won't be notable. NOTMEMORIAL applies. To be blunt, many people pass away in tragedies like this event and as in 9/11, most aren't notable 10 or 20 yrs later; having a list of xyz that passed away doesn't serve any purpose other than as a memorial. The only individuals looking at Brendon Bowersox as an example in 20 yrs are likely to be family members or perhaps a very small group of historians. To the broader public, he would simply be another individual that passed away, who's name you can switch with any other from the list and it wouldn't make any difference for notability. Not to belittle any of these individuals or their contributions, but not everyone that passes away in a conflict needs a wikipedia article or even to be listed in a long list of otherwise non-notable people. Oaktree b (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep but move to a title along the lines of Military involvement of Americans in the Russo-Ukrainian War, and do the same for other articles along these lines in Category:Russo-Ukrainian War casualties. I am wary of the reasoning that compelled two relists of a discussion with a better than 2-1 ratio of "keep" !votes, at least some of which have policy-based rationales in the notability of the group as a group. However, since there is some additional context provided in the article, moving to a broader title would correct the scope from the narrower casualty list. BD2412 T 02:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  I don't believe the soldiers killed in the conflict were current US army servicemen, they were veterans who chose to fight in Ukraine, meaning that the military involvement of Americans would make it an entirely separate article in its own right. Something worth exploring/expanding separately. Conyo14 (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  The proposed title does not say "U.S. military involvement", just "Military involvement by Americans", which the people listed were. BD2412 T 19:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - Unfortunately, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Two out of 50+ people listed that do meet notability requirements could perhaps be mentioned in Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War or a similar article. All but one 'keep' argument are simply WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL. – Primium (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War: There are currently seven articles of the form, "List of <nationality> killed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine" for foreign causualties fighting alongside Ukrainian forces. There are zero such articles for foreign causualties fighting alongside Russian forces, despite there being just as much such casualties, from just as many different countries. It's hard not to see the systematic bias here as some form of memorial. And of the hundreds listed in the lists we have, a grand total of two people are notable enough to have an article about them. The "historically important" argument voiced by the Keep side is a good reason for creating a primary source. That is not what we do here. Owen× ☎ 19:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• Admin notice: This AfD was purportedly closed by an account with 17 edits that was soon after indef-blocked as a vandalism-only account. I've reverted this closure. Please wait for an admin or experienced editor to close this AfD. Sandstein 09:56, 23 May 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.

Battle of Ajmer

Battle of Ajmer (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 is no such a battle named "Battle of Ajmer" in any of the WP:RS nor any Historians named a battle as "Battle of Ajmer" between Mher tribe and Ghurids. The article body talks about a conflict between Mher tribe and Ghurids, whereas the infobox describes Rajputs as the belligerents. Neither from the source of R. C Majumdar, nor from Romila Thapar, I could even find a scattered line about this event. The actual event per cited is the prelude of Battle of Kasahrada (1197). The current content could be added into this parent article (edit: it is already present the background section). Fails WP:GNG, and not found any RS calling the event by the name of "Battle of Ajmer". Imperial^[AFCND] 05:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Geography, and India. Imperial^[AFCND] 05:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
• Draftify or Very Weak Keep. The sources from Majumdar and Thapar, like ImperialAficionado I too could not verify or find on this Battle and would have opted for delete but the source from Dr Ashoka Srivastav from Department of history at University of Gorakhpur had me hanging from where the page got its attribution from. There is need for improvement on this page and some more detail that is missing or wrong about the battle, siege, and the belligerents. From Srivastav Belligerents were Mhers, many Hindu Rajas, Raja of Nagor, Raja of Nahrwala. It does not say Rajputs. More sources will help too. RangersRus (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 10:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Wikipedia is rapidly filling up with made-up Indian battles. Mccapra (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I agree, I'm seeing more and more articles written on little-known or little-documented battles fought in Central and South Asia. Many of them end up being disucussed here in AFDs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep or Draftify The sources do actually have SIGCOV around this battle, although it's not well formatted but could be fixed. I think the author has cited the different volume of History and Culture of the Indian People therefore we find nothing about this event in that volume, but after my findings in its preceding 5th volume, there is a significant coverage:

"In A.D. 1195-6 the Mher tribes of Ajmer combined with the Chalukyas to expel the Turks from Rajputana. Aibak had to rush to the help of the Turkish governor of Ajmer. Finding the Mhers camping near Ajmer he engaged them in a battle, but when the enemy were reinforced by the Chalukya ruler’s army, Aibak was forced to withdraw into". I guess these two sources should be enough, if not then draftify it, so that the author of the page could improve it by adding some more sources. Also the source from Thapar should be removed. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 07:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• Draftify: The page creator as a new user should receive our support if there's reason to believe sourcing could be found as described by User:Based Kashmiri. Page creator attempted themselves to move this to draft during this discussion but was reverted appropriately for procedural reasons. BusterD (talk) 14:31, 23 May 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