Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military/archive
• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military/archive 2

watch

Military and combat

Keilyn DiStefano

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

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

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

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

Conquests of Genghis Khan

Conquests of Genghis Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

HMS Belgol

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

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Transportation, and United Kingdom. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 07:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete- ship is notable but article is mistitled (should be RFA not HMS) and basically gives no info beyond birth (launch) and death (scrapping). Could be moved back to draftspace (as with all ships articles by this editor) but overall I think WP:TNT can apply Lyndaship (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect back to the class article, which will also need a lot of fixing. As per Lyndaship, this article doesn't state anything beyond what would be in a class article anyway.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

List of wars involving Bengal until 1971

List of wars involving Bengal until 1971 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A WP:POVFORK & WP:POVSPLIT of List of wars involving Bangladesh, in order to evade the WP:NLIST and anachronistic issues [1]. Possibly a sock creation as well [2]. – Garuda ^Talk! 19:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Bangladesh, China, Myanmar, Nepal, India, Assam, Bihar, Maharashtra, Odisha, Tamil Nadu, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, and United Kingdom. – Garuda ^Talk! 19:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France and Netherlands. – Garuda ^Talk! 19:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan and United States. – Garuda ^Talk! 19:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rajasthan, Jammu and Kashmir, and Karnataka. – Garuda ^Talk! 19:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - There was a suggestion in the talk page of the List of wars involving Bangladesh suggesting the creation for this page. I don't see how this is a POV Fork, there is no particular point of view within this page, everything is from a neutral point of view. Thorough research was put in to include every war and battle, no defeats or victories were kept hidden as to push a certain perspective. Longsword4 (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes a poor proposal by a blocked sock, which really means nothing. By POVFORK we infer: bypassing the problems of an article by creating a new one, without actually addressing the issues raised. In this case the issues are notability and anachronism. – Garuda ^Talk! 21:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - This is not a means of bypassing anything as I did not create or partake in the creation of the original additions of the List of wars involving Bangladesh nor do I have any affiliation to it. I have been browsing Wikipedia on and off for the past few years and decided to make this account to make the List of wars involving Bengal until 1971 page. I thought that because I had prior experience editing Wikipedia from a few years ago that it would be easy, especially as this page is just a list. The issue of anachronism was flagged because of the the wars being on a page about Bangladesh and how Bangladesh is a relatively new construct. There were also no sources indicating anything about Bangladesh, all sources were pointing to Bengal as a whole. This is why, along with that person's suggestion, I decided to make the page. Now concerning anachronism and notability, I do not believe this page is another page based off of anachronism because there are books such as The History of Bengal or The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204–1760 and Land of Two Rivers: A History of Bengal from the Mahabharata to Mujib that explicitly use the term Bengal while referring to it's history and wars such as Ancient, Late and Early medieval Bengal. Longsword4 (talk) 19:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - I'm somewhat confused by this nomination. The nominator has fought to keep wars prior to the foundation of Bangladesh off List of wars involving Bangladesh yet objects to them being in another article. I don't see how this can be a POVFORK/SPLIT as a different time period is covered. If List of wars involving Bangladesh limits itself to events since the formation of Bangladesh, then events prior to the formation being covered in another article is not unreasonable. --John B123 (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Samuel J. Hays

Samuel J. Hays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. nf utvol (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: I'm always undecided about articles dealing with people from over a hundred years ago; I've tended to look at them as if they were active in current times. Outside of the slavery parts (which are repugnant), this is a businessman and a soldier. I suppose being offered a genralship would show notability, but the rest of his military career doesn't seem impressive and the business activities are not notable. I'd be more inclined to keep the article if there was at least one book written about him. We simply seem to have bits and pieces brought together to make a somewhat interesting (but brief) biography here. This would perhaps be more suited for a local history project. Oaktree b (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• I'm leaning delete at this point - the 1944 source is best but it may even be tertiary (someone reading their report to the paper.) That being said I'm loathe to - the problem is that notability isn't quite clear from the sources. Are there any better sources out there? SportingFlyer T·C 07:10, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - if not independently notable as "local flunky of Andrew Jackson" or "drinking buddy of Jefferson Davis" could we turn him into a section of dad Robert Hays (Tennessee) or brother Stockley D. Hays? jengod (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  That might be the most appropriate thing here. I see you've done a ton of work expanding the article since its nom, and I don't want to see that work and the info go to waste, but I'm still not sure it's actually hitting the bar for notability since so much of the reporting is, as you said, boozing it up with Davis while at West Point or being a politico for Jackson. The stuff in the Williams books could contribute to his own notability since there are a few paragraphs devoted to him, but I'm inclined to keep the AfD going to see what the broader community thinks. nf utvol (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  The other option and really the reason this article exists is Wards of Andrew Jackson--he used these nephews in lieu of biological sons, and as per the Inman chapter on the first generation, they were all enabling one another within the endogamous kinship-network business model. We have A. J. Hutchings as a subsection of John Hutchings (slave trader) for the time being since he, like Hays, was pretty happy just being rich. meanwhile Andrew Jackson Jr. and the Indigenous members of the Andrew Jackson household are the subject of a lot of scholarship even though their accomplishments are not independently notable. IDK. I can just put it on findagrave if it doesn't have a place here LOL. jengod (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: article is vastly expanded since nomination, it is well researched and the figure was incredibly notable at their time. There is actually a few additional sources about Hays being a secretary to Jackson, his Mexican-American war service as well as to his property Bellwood that could be added here. Clearly a notable figure and its worth not scrubbing the site of well researched and accountable work on slavery just because the history is repulsive. It is this history is important to remember.Nayyn (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Capture of Jhain

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

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

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

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

Oppose There are plenty of sources that significantly cover it. The article could be expanded though. [3] [4] [5] (pg 209) [6] (Page 221) [7] (pg 136) Noorullah (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Siege of Bayana

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

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, India, and Rajasthan. Koshuri ^(グ) 10:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Samad Ali Changezi

Samad Ali Changezi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 09:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 09:16, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Garuda ^Talk! 10:19, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Nitin Mehta

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

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. Taabii (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• Draftify. I reviewed AFC of this page but did not accept or decline as there was still space for improvement where I asked the creator to add more reliable sources with significant coverage about his career and roles in Akhanda and Ravansura. This page should go back to draft till significant coverage is generated, whether any roles the subject played were notable. RangersRus (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: Coverage seems to have him meet WP:GNG and his (not lead but significant) roles in notable productions are probably enough for a WP:NACTOR pass. -Mushy Yank. 19:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC) Spy/notable film/significant role https://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/movie-reviews/290623/movie-review-spy-wow-our-raw-agent-averts-indo-china-war.html; Akhanda/notable film/significant role.
• Comment. Reviewed the sources. GreatAndhra is unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES source. Deccan Chronicle, reliable source does not show if the subject's role was significant. Gulte is also an unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES source which is also just promotional. I still think it is better to move the page back to draft till significant coverage is found that shows that any of the roles the subject played were significant and not just minor roles. RangersRus (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - The source assessment by RangerRus is accurate. I would suggest draftify as an WP:ATD but I did a search and cannot find better sources so no amount of editing in draft would bring this up to notability standards in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Zuck28 (talk) 12:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Nalos

Battle of Nalos (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 source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iranian112 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Waisey (Waisy, Karwan Salih (2015-07-15). "The Kurdish Peshmarga Force 1943-1975". Global Journal of Human-Social Science. 15 (D2): 27–46. ISSN 2249-460X.) listed as "Further reading" does not mention this engagement. I can also find no explicit mention of this battle in what I assume is Lortz - while not linked here, it appears to be Michael G. Lortz. "Chapter 1: Introduction: The Kurdish Warrior Tradition and the Importance of the Peshmerga" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-10-29. Retrieved 2014-10-16. as used in Iraqi–Kurdish conflict. There is a very brief mention in Eagletoh of a clash at Nalos in 16 March 1947 "On 16 March at Nalos the Barzarnis killed some twelve Iranian soldiers including one officer, and took five officers and sixty-eight soldiers prisoner" (p. 120). I cannot see sufficient coverage in the sources given to warrant an article.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Inadequate rationale.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Garuda ^Talk! 20:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

• Weak delete: Passing mention in sources, at best should be a mention in an article with a larger scope, but not really enough in the sources to help show notability. Ravensfire (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Khoy Massacre

Khoy Massacre (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)

After looking for suitable sources, I believe this event does not meet WP:NEVENT, despite the claim of 3,800 killed in one source. I cannot find even one source, including those cited, that deals with this event in depth (note there was a different massacre in Khoy in 1915). (t · c) buidhe 08:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Tur Abdin Massacre

Tur Abdin Massacre (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:NOR and WP:NOPAGE issues. The Sayfo (also known as Assyrian genocide) did occur in the Tur Abdin region and many people were killed. However, calling it the "Tur Abdin massacre" is misleading and not found in the sources cited. Instead, there were a variety of massacres in different locations. There is more information in Sayfo#Tur Abdin than in this article, and it will come up in searches for this term. Therefore, I think that deletion or redirect is the best option. (t · c) buidhe 08:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:58, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: a mess of WP:OR Koshuri ^(グ) 17:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Vijayanagara Campaigns in Sri Lanka

Vijayanagara Campaigns in Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Sri Lanka, and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  the article was based on the all the expeditions sent by Vijayanagara Emperors to Enforce Tribute on Sri Lanka there isn't a single book covering all the campaigns of vijaynagara in Sri Lanka so I used multiple sources to cover all the expeditions in one single article. For example check out ummayud campaigns in India the sources didn't mention the campaign name also that doesn't mean the article was fabricated. Lion of Ariana (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  there isn't a single book covering all the campaigns of vijaynagara in Sri Lanka so I used multiple sources to cover all the expeditions in one single article.– This is what we call WP:SYNTH, It is not allowed on wikipedia. Koshuri ^(グ) 18:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Using neural network language models on Wikipedia Check out this the notice board Lion of Ariana (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - the topic is notable and well documented. See the New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara[8], also [9], [10], [11]. Herinalian (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  All your sources mentions Vijayanagara Campaign against Bahmani Sultanate; while the article is about Vijayanagara Campaign against Sri Lanka. Consider withdrawing your keep vote. Mr.Hanes Talk 02:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Herinalian You should check the article and the sources you shared again. None of them are related to this article, All of the sources you shared mentions conflict between Vijaynagara and Bahmani sultanate. The article is about Vijaynagar campaigns in Sri Lanka. Koshuri ^(グ) 18:41, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Delete - The topic has significant coverage of Vijayanagara's campaigns in Sri Lanka and fulfills GNG, and this article should not be deleted because the sources do not mention the title. Different reliable sources describe various campaigns led by Vijayanagara—which does not violate WP:OR.Dam222 🌋 (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

As per Koshuri Sultan, The article contains fictional timeline and no sources described about the event specifically Dam222 🌋 (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

• I've checked all of the cited sources, None of them provides significant coverage to this campaign. None of the sources mentions that this campaign lasted for “1386–1621”, it's clearly a product of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. If you have any reliable source which mentions that this campaign lasted for 1386–1621 (as mentioned in the article) and provides significant coverage then share it here. Mr.Hanes Talk 17:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: Clearly fails WP:GNG. I couldn't find enough WP:SIGCOV in any of the sources cited in the article to establish Notability (WP:N). Another problem with the article is that it is heavily based on original research and synthesis none of the sources mentions this event as Vijayanagara Campaigns in Sri Lanka with the fictitious timeline mentioned in the article. Hence I see no point in keeping this article. Koshuri ^(グ) 18:39, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Mr.Hanes The timeline isn't fictional the first Expedition to Sri Lanka was launched by Emperor Hari Hara II under the command of Virupaksha Raya in 1386 AD and the last expedition sent to Sri Lanka in 1621 AD by Raghunatha Nayak he was subordinate to Emperor Rama Deva Raya Lion of Ariana (talk) 11:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  Where does it mentions independently that the timeline of the campaign is "1386–1621". It is clearly WP:OR Mr.Hanes Talk 11:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Mr.Hanes https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.119514/page/n138/mode/1up?view=theater check out this page numbers 117-122 Lion of Ariana (talk) 11:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Israeli support for Hamas

Israeli support for Hamas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

  What do you mean by primary sources? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I think that "reliable" is more of what I was going for. Edited accordingly. Display name 99 (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm seeing that most of the articles with this as their primary topic are just characterizing Israel's earlier Hamas policy as favoring it against the PLO, and generally avoid using the language of "support". The fact that there's no academic source on the "Israeli support of Hamas" is telling. As an analogy, we wouldn't have an article for "Indian provocations of Pakistan", though there are many articles assessing Indian foreign policy as doing so—the information from those sources would belong on Wikipedia, but don't collectively suggest "Indian provocations of Pakistan" as a notable topic. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - there are enough citations from reliable sources over a long time span mentioning the topic (although not always using the exact word "support" - the article could be renamed something like "Role of the Israeli government in the rise to power to Hamas" or "Israeli enabling of Hamas," if it's necessary to avoid the word "support"). NHCLS (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Mala Kladuša offensive

Mala Kladuša offensive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Siege of Samarkhel

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

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

Quite the same rationale as of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Siege of Samarkhel: The article is possibly a WP:HOAX, with no sign of independent significant coverage and only passing mentions: The Mujahideen managed to seize Samarkhel village east of Jalalabad in the sources. Also it look likes it's a WP:SAMETYPEFORK. – Garuda ^Talk! 23:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Terrorism, Asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Middle East, Saudi Arabia, and United States of America. – Garuda ^Talk! 23:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi! The Siege of Samarkhel is the original article before someone made the “First Siege of Samarkhel” article. They deleted the entire article to make it but I luckily reverted it. AfghanParatrooper19891 (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Two sources that mention the fighting in Samarkhel:

https://www.rebellionresearch.com/what-happened-in-the-battle-of-jalalabad

https://www.nytimes.com/1989/09/13/world/jalalabad-shows-its-recovery-as-siege-by-rebels-dwindles.html

However, this “siege” was part of the Battle of Jalalabad but I did not make this article. I don’t know whose idea was it to call it a “siege”. AfghanParatrooper19891 (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: There doesn't seem to be much evidence for the seige, one of the sources only mentions that Samarkhel was seized . Even if a seige did take place, it isn't notable enough for a standalone article. AlvaKedak (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Timtim76 (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Not notable. Per nomination. Rubik's Cube 3x3 20:05, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This would seem like a slam-dunk deletion but two editors who argued for Deletion are very inexperienced which makes me wonder how they turned up at this AFD. This situation causes me to relist this discussion to get more feedback from our experienced AFD regulars.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: Going through the 14 sources currently on the article as I write this.

- [12] Appears to be LLM/AI generated based on the website, lack of sources, and lack of author. It also fails to mention a seige of Samarkhil (note the spelling difference) but does mention that the village was part of the defenses of Jalalabad (if we can trust what it says).

- [13] A reliable source about the Battle/Siege of Jalalabad that does mention Samarkhel in passing but it doesn't appear that there was any significant siege of that location.

- [14] Another reliable source talking about the siege of Jalalabad, no mention of Samarkhel.

- [15] Page 45 as the citation claims is about the year 1000 CE, so it is only 980 or so years off. The book does mention Jalalabad (unsure of full context though) with only a brief mention of Samarkhel.

- [16] Another solid looking book that mentions Samarkhel as a location but nothing about a siege.

- [17] same source as number [2]

- [18] no mention of Samarkhil or Samarkhel, only 2 results for Jalalabad.

- [19] This mentions Samarkhel as a frontline, but in the battle of Jalalabad, not its own siege.

- [20] Same source as [4], this time the page marked is the singular mention of Samakhel, but again it appears to be a brief mention, not its own topic.

- [21] mentions Samarkhel (Mountain) purely in relation to being near Jalalabad.

- [22] Unfortunately Google books doesn't have Search Inside for this one so No Comment.

- [23] Same as [1], just as bad now as it was then.

- [24] Someone with military history training might tell me if this is important? but as far as I can tell it just talks about Jalalabad.

- [25] Same as [8]

Overall I think this article was mistakenly created from the Siege/Battle of Jalalabad article and should be deleted. It doesn't appear as if there was any actual siege that occurred for this to even be worthy of a redirect to the main page instead. Moritoriko (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

A. C. Frieden

A. C. Frieden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Senegal, and United States of America. Tacyarg (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Switzerland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Couldn't find anything on Proquest for any of his books. The Daily Herald piece is clearly a press release from the publisher, and the two Kirkus reviews are from the Kirkus Indie program, which means they are paid reviews and therefore not usable for the purposes of WP:NAUTHOR. Didn't find anything else to suggest notability. MCE89 (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I believe this article meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for authors. While the Kirkus reviews may not be considered strong independent sources per WP:NAUTHOR, additional evidence supports the subject’s notability. The author has been featured in multiple crime fiction podcasts, including *Spear-Talk* and *Second Sunday Books*, where he has been interviewed alongside other established thriller writers. Additionally, he has contributed articles to *Thrilleresque Magazine*, an independent literary publication recognized in the crime fiction community.

Furthermore, the author is one of the few Western writers to have visited and written about North Korea, a topic that has been central to two of his published works. His experiences in North Korea have been discussed in both *Spear-Talk* and *Second Sunday Books* podcasts, as well as in his referenced article in *Thrilleresque Magazine*.

I am continuing to search for independent sources, particularly given that the author has spoken on *espionage thriller* panels at *Bouchercon 2024* and *Bouchercon 2022*, one of the most recognized literary events in crime fiction. Given the subject’s multiple published works, ongoing media coverage, and contributions to the crime fiction genre, I request that the article be retained. 2601:241:8E00:87B:8159:B6BD:E466:6C67 (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Following my initial response, I have found and added additional independent sources related to the author's latest book, *Midnight in Delhi*, which has received multiple positive reviews in the U.S. and India. Notably, *Best Thriller Books*, one of the leading independent book reviewers in the thriller genre, has reviewed the novel. These new references further reinforce the subject’s ongoing recognition in the crime fiction community. I am continuing to search for more independent coverage to strengthen the article. 2601:241:8E00:87B:8159:B6BD:E466:6C67 (talk) 03:20, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Appearances on podcasts and panels, an article that the subject authored, and an alumni interview can't be considered towards notability, as they are not independent sources. These two sources seem to just be publisher blurbs. The review in "Best Thriller Books" is a little closer, but it's an extremely short review on what seems to be a relatively obscure website. I don't think we're close to WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG yet. MCE89 (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Following my previous response, I have added multiple independent sources confirming the author's participation in major crime fiction literary events. Notably, A.C. Frieden has been a featured panelist at *Bouchercon 2018 (St. Petersburg)*, *Bouchercon 2019 (Dallas)*, and *Bouchercon 2024 (Nashville)*, with an upcoming panel scheduled for *Bouchercon 2025*. These conferences are widely recognized as some of the most prestigious gatherings in the crime fiction genre. Independent references from *CrimeReads*, *Lone Star Literary Life*, and *J.T. Ellison’s official website* confirm his participation, further supporting his standing in the field. These sources are **third-party, reliable, and independent of the subject**, meeting Wikipedia's WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR standards. Additionally, I am continuing to search for further independent sources, particularly reviews of Frieden's novels in established media outlets. Given the subject’s multiple published works, confirmed speaking engagements at industry-leading events, and coverage in respected literary publications, I request that the article be retained. 2601:241:8E00:87B:F8CE:427D:F4AB:EDC8 (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Garuda ^Talk! 00:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Both nom and MCE89 have provided significant evidence that the subject of this article lacks the widespread independent secondary coverage required by GNG. The article is also contains promotional material which looks like a WP:RESUME. Nearly the entire bibliography is composed of self-authored, self-published, or otherwise primary sources that are disqualified for consideration towards notability.  GuardianH  05:36, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  Oppose Deletion. The assertion that the subject lacks widespread independent secondary coverage overlooks the significant credibility of Down & Out Books, a leading crime fiction publisher. Notably, Down & Out Books is the official publisher of the Bouchercon Anthology, the official annual publication of Bouchercon, the world's premier crime fiction conference. Additionally, Down & Out Books has published works by over 200 authors, including #1 New York Times bestselling author C.J. Box and Edgar Award-winning authors David Housewright and Naomi Hirahara, among others. The publisher’s association with such acclaimed writers underscores its legitimacy and prominence in the crime fiction community. Down & Out Books has published four of the subject’s works, including the most recent, which was published in both the U.S. and India in November 2024. This international distribution further demonstrates the subject’s professional recognition and reach.

  Dismissing the bibliography as "self-authored, self-published, or otherwise primary sources" misrepresents the nature of Down & Out Books. While it operates as an independent press, it is not a vanity or self-publishing operation. The publisher maintains a rigorous editorial selection process, professional production standards, and industry-wide distribution, aligning with reputable publishing practices.

  Given the publisher's prestige, its role in publishing multiple works by the subject, and the subject's international reach, the article meets WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR guidelines. Concerns regarding promotional language can be addressed through standard editorial improvements rather than deletion. 2601:241:8E00:87B:F5B2:D640:8893:3CB1 (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Patti

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete. Zero mentions of any such "battle" in reliable sources available to me. Possibly merge salvagable content without redirect as per the above discussion. utcursch | talk 22:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Garuda ^Talk! 20:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Annagudi

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

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

Not a single mention of 'Annagudi' [26] in the sources, let alone having a conflict around this. Another poorly cited source which doesn't have pages and relies on 2 lines of mentions in footnotes of the book [27], doesn't give confidence that this event pass WP:SIGCOV & WP:GNG. Koshuri ^(グ) 15:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, India, Europe, and United Kingdom. Koshuri ^(グ) 15:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• Strong Keep The proposer couldn't find "Annagudi" in the first source because the place is no longer known as Annagudi. The place is represented in the source as Kumbakonam[28]. The article indeed needs to get a fresh work, but not ready for deletion. One of the major reason for me to oppose the deletion is, it is a named battle, with much significance in the Second Anglo-Mysore War. The event is called by the name "Battle of Annagudi" by Spencer C. Tucker[29] (p-955), C. Hayavadana Rao [30] p-1317), and Narendra Krishna Sonna [31] (p-219). What makes it more notable is, it was the battle where Sir John Braithwaite, 1st Baronet got captured and imprisoned for 2 years. We get a lot of sources covering the event, eg:[32], [33], [34], [35]... Many Early British records are too available mentioning this conflict, which itself describe its importance.--Imperial^[AFCND] 15:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

  Even if it's named as 'Kumbakonam' I still found no mentions of the event besides in the appendix [36] which gives no insights of the 'battle'. This is inaccessible, even searching through sort method I found no more than 3 lines of coverage. C. Hayavadana Rao was a British official and his work by default falls into WP:RAJ and most of the last sources are also either old or Raj ones, which left us only two sources above which doesn't have enough significant coverage to have this topic its own article. Koshuri ^(グ) 15:49, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: I can't find any mentions in some of the sources, and the ones that do mention it, only do so briefly. Therefore this subject isn't notable enough for a standalone article. AlvaKedak (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Military history of the Warsaw Uprising

Military history of the Warsaw Uprising (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Old WP:CFORK of Warsaw Uprising. It makes little sence to have a "military history of a battle"-type of any article anyway. This just rehashes the content from Warsaw Uprising, and has very few references. This is a failed experiment from the early years of Wikipedia, when we were figuring out how to write and split content (I was involved in this topic and article, years ago). At best, this can be redirected to the main article to prevent some pointless red links from appearing. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Poland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete/redirect. This is a failed experiment from the early years of Wikipedia. Exactly. Srnec (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect as a WP:ATD. Clearly a WP:BADFORK of Warsaw Uprising. BilletsMauves^€500 12:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete as WP:REDUNDANTFORK. No value in keeping this article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Garuda ^Talk! 13:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete I see no reason for this article to be kept. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom and Hawkeye7. No need for this now. Intothatdarkness 18:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect Per all above, ideally with someone checking if there's anything of value to be merged first. Given the distinct lack of sources compared to the main article this seems unlikely. Rusalkii (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Portuguese–Algerian War (1790–1813)

Portuguese–Algerian War (1790–1813) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

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

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

  • The bits of this article that aren't synthesizing a fictional war are either already there or already in Action of 27 May 1802. Uncle G (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Internment Serial Number

Internment Serial Number (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, Cuba, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 08:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing but passing mentions, and anyway, the subject is so narrow I don't see how encyclopedic content could ever be collected. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge The information in here used to be more notable and easier to find, but some of the links have broken over the decades and search engines have rotted. Searching now for "ISN" or "ISN number" yields nothing relevant, but "prisoner ISN number" yields 3 relevant results in a sea of garbage. One is this Wikipedia page. Another is a mirror of this page. "ISN" and "ISN number" are mentioned on other Wikipedia articles without being defined. If you delete this page, the information may become lost. The information is cited and was apparently encyclopedic for the last 18 years. Mentioning that the author was banned seems like an ad hominem fallacy, since they hadn't touched the page in 12 years when they were banned, and were banned for reasons unrelated to anything in this page. 67.4.130.73 (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

  Being online for 18 yrs proves nothing and I don't see how an entire article on a number used in a prison helps anything. They have to track people somehow while in custody. Oaktree b (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

  It does, though. 18 years ago it was notable, and nobody complained that the article existed. Why the change now? Just because the sources have disappeared? Should the article be deleted just because all the non-encyclopedia webpages about it have turned to dust? 67.4.130.73 (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

  It should be deleted if it's non-encyclopedic to start with. Being online for 18 years means nothing, we've worked on notability standards, which were pretty flimsy when Wikipedia started. Oaktree b (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: An extended DICDEF for what amounts to a prison id system. Not sure why this needs an article. Person gets arrested, is given an id number. Oaktree b (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep. Subject meets SIGCOV and is distinct from the prison ID system, which is not managed by US DoD. Identification systems, if well-covered and notable, are fair game for articles. Eelipe (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Links to SIGCOV about ISN specifically, not just passing mentions? None in the article. Longhornsg (talk) 06:58, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep This is quite strange and curious type of knowledge. It is worth keeping. Where else would such information. I think it is probably significant. scope_creep^Talk 18:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Garuda ^Talk! 14:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. None of the sources offer significant coverage of the concept of an ISN. Some of them don't even mention it. Clear WP:GNG fail. Astaire (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Military Proposed deletions

The following articles have been tagged for proposed deletion:

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