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

2014 Bangladesh-Myanmar border skirmish

2014 Bangladesh-Myanmar border skirmish (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 type of skirmish is not uncommon in the region. The event had no lasting historical significance, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Worldbruce (talk) 06:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Bangladesh, and Myanmar. Worldbruce (talk) 06:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Knowledge Aided Retrieval in Activity Context

Knowledge Aided Retrieval in Activity Context (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:PROMO and fails WP:GNG. KARNAC was mentioned in one promotional article in 2001 ([1], which was mentioned in WP:PASSING in one Radio Free Europe article 4 years ago, with no update as to whether this software was actually created. Longhornsg (talk) 05:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, Terrorism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 05:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep. There is sigcov in a 2009 book for two pages but it is discussed seemingly as a kind of hypothetical-ish thing. Discussed in several books from the 2010s as well, i less lengthy pieces. I would argue it is at least somewhat notable as a proposal - there is a decent amount of newspaper criticism of just the concept. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information

Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect to Controlled Unclassified Information. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Mentions of NNPI are solely in this context ([2] [3] [4] [5], not WP:SIGCOV.

NNPI is one of many, many unremarkable categories of Controlled Unclassified Information, to where this article should redirect. Longhornsg (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Samer al-Hajj

Samer al-Hajj (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 see any credible claim of notability here; press reports merely describe him as a Hamas official.Search throws up less than nothing TheLongTone (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Lebanon, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - a search among RSes brings up nothing on the subject besides the assassination, which itself doesn't seem overly significant in the scope of the war, so the article seems to fail WP:BLP1E. The Kip ^(contribs) 05:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete - Per Kip and redirect page to Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present) Prodrummer619 (talk) 09:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

16th Artillery Brigade (Ukraine)

16th Artillery Brigade (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)

Fails WP:GNG. Can't find any sources online, possibly redirect to National Guard of Ukraine? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 09:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Ukraine. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 09:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

(https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61559047920465), (https://www.ukrdruk.com/product/flag-00853/), (https://www.ukrinform.ua/rubric-ato/3888632-u-nacgvardii-stvorili-centr-upravlinna-bezpilotnih-sistem-komanduvac.html) Mgfdhsrhe (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• [6] - gives short description, commander, where it's based from MUN number.
• [7] - article about drone hunting group of brigade not receiving bonuses. 13:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Ceriy (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Bajrur

Battle of Bajrur (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)

Low quality article about a non notable event with limited coverage within sources + the third ref does not contain a link to a book whose content can be verified. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, India, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Rumal

Battle of Rumal (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)

Low quality article about a relatively non notable event with limited coverage within sources. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jammu and Kashmir-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - from a quick glance at Google books there are various mentions of this battle. Notability is not temporary, so if it was notable at the time it is enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. AfD is not the place to raise quality concerns. --Soman (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Soman None of the sources have any WP:SIGCOV significant coverage of the topic. This seems like it would be better suited for a consolidated page like Hill States-Sikh wars. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep- This all references incline in this article are more than sufficient with solidarity sourced apparently this article don’t need any kind of insertion 2402:8100:217A:E8B4:ADBA:BB28:A502:E613 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Note to closer: I am a frequent recipient of harassment and targeting by an incredibly pertinacious sockmaster-[8] who created more than a dozen burner accounts in just the past year solely to target me. His socks most recently targeted my AFDs and PRODs- [9] and [10] and [11] and [12]. The most recent examples are this- in which his IP/proxy removed my PROD on the article Katoch-Sikh war, 2 admins have stated that this was almost certainly HB block evading- [13] + [14]. He has also employed meat puppetry to target AFDs and PRODs. Note that this IP also created a draft for Katoch-Sikh war, the same page HB's sock targeted, very heavily indicating sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry at play here. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Also the IP has the exact same writing style as HB. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

   Comment: Sorry what, It upon their own determination rather He isSockpuppet or intruder but definitely non of your expedition but suspiciously why did you creating pointless arguments you don't have any right to blast decretory statement on someone else you might face some serious consequences for such speculation @Southasianhistorian8 MasterofRepulse (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Newly created account creating same articles that were AFDed and successfully deleted by me-[15] + [16]. Thanks. Will be taking to SPI or AN. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Note: In addition to very obviously being HB's sock/meatpuppet, you can see the IP and the account are clearly operated by the same person since they both submitted their drafts (Battle of Rori Sahib, Battle of Ambala, and Katoch Sikh war) minutes apart from each other-[17] + [18]. At the very very least, these votes should be accorded zero weight and obviously proves my point of a sock/meat campaign to target AFDs/reinstate articles which aggrandize their religion. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry to bother you but how regressively your oppressing other on behalf of their religion with propagating your pathetic statement you need to be calm down sir for our both MasterofRepulse (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

National Security Action Memorandum 235

National Security Action Memorandum 235 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Delete or redirect to Presidency of John F. Kennedy as WP:AtD. One of hundreds of executive actions by President John Kennedy, not all of which have notability as evidenced by their WP:LASTING significance of WP:SIGCOV. There are some passing references [19] [20] in books, but nothing that justifies a standalone article or that can't be covered in better context in the redirect. Longhornsg (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Science, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
• Speedy redirect There's literally no content or secondary sources here, just the text that could be at Wikisource. Next time try PROD or a bold BLAR and see if anyone objects. Reywas92^Talk 16:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

List of Swedish detainees at Guantanamo Bay

List of Swedish detainees at Guantanamo Bay (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)

Also nominating the following articles for the same reason:

List of Mauritanian detainees at Guantanamo Bay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Belgian detainees at Guantanamo Bay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Danish detainees at Guantanamo Bay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:NLIST. One of 20+ extraneous articles created by now-WP:CBANed user Geo Swan, unnecessarily breaking out the List of Guantanamo Bay detainees into country-by-country counts. The large list includes detainees' nationalities. If separating by nationality is necessary, the chart on that page can be reformatted to enable such an examination. What this has led to is pages of various encyclopedic quality and accuracy, when maintaining one article, out of date in its own right, is more than enough. Longhornsg (talk) 04:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, Sweden, Cuba, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 04:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Should we be deleting all of the nation lists on the Template:Guantanamo Bay Detainees? If not, why these particular ones? (I'm likely supporting deletion, just trying to understand the situation.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 07:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I would say that any list with only one entry should be a redirect to an article on the individual. AlexandraAVX (talk) 07:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes the rest should be added to AfD. Longhornsg (talk) 07:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Procedural keep, the nominated articles are very different from each other (Danish and Swedish has one entry each, Afghan states there have been over 200). AlexandraAVX (talk) 07:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete, somewhat for the OP's concerns, somewhat for WP:BLPCRIME issues. I realize it's a broad interpretation, but these are lists of people who have been imprisoned by a government for doing something the government deems wrong, and generally have not faced a trial and conviction. Looking at the lists, there are a lot of non-linked names and red-linked names, and many of those that are blue-linked, their page is just about the fact that they were so imprisoned, so these qualify as otherwise-not-notable folks. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect all Duplicates main page, where I've combined the letter tables so the sorting works. No, these pages are not different from each other, they are all redundant to the main article and none are needed separately. Reywas92^Talk 17:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Redirect all to one list. Guantanamo being Guantanamo I would argue that a list of all inmates is potentially encyclopedic but I don't see why we would need it to split it into multiple articles. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Delete List of Swedish detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Belgian detainees at Guantanamo Bay, List of Danish detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and List of Mauritanian detainees at Guantanamo Bay here as WP:NLIST violations, having fewer than a handful doesn't qualify you for a whole list, if the subject is notable bring it up there and if they're not List of Guantanamo Bay detainees is that way. Break out List of Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay into its own AfD, with over 200 detainees that's a whole separate issue worth examining and per AlexandraAVX should be discussed separately. Bestagon ⬡ 21:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Majid Mahmud Abdu Ahmad

Majid Mahmud Abdu Ahmad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. There were almost 800 detainees at Guantanamo, not all of them notable, especially by Wikipedia standards. Being detained at a famous prison does not confer notability, otherwise everyone incarcerated at ADX Florence should have an article as well. In the almost two decades since many of the standalone pages for detainees were created, many of them have properly been redirected to the list articles. Ahmad is another such non-notable detainee. Longhornsg (talk) 04:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Cuba, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 04:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: per WP:BLP1E TarnishedPath^talk 06:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Guardian (database)

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

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

Redirect to Federal Bureau of Investigation, where the information is already covered. Database, one of likely hundreds that the FBI uses, is not notable on its own and is better covered on the agency's page. Longhornsg (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, Politics, Terrorism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect per nom. C F A 💬 23:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Redirect per nom. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Michael James Birchell

Michael James Birchell (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 WP:NOTMEMORIAL non-notable soldier, one of 8 killed in the same battle in Operation Bribie. Sources are largely name listings or about the battle rather than him Mztourist (talk) 10:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 10:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 10:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography ([21]) is sufficient for WP:ANYBIO#3. Curbon7 (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The preceding wording of WP:ANYBIO#3 states "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards." Its a presumption not a rule. I read the entry and don't see anything notable there. I wonder if it lists all 500+ Australians killed in Vietnam. Mztourist (talk) 10:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Well yes it is a presumption, but the ADB entry provides quite a bit of WP:SIGCOV (note that WP:THREE is a suggestion, and one very high quality source is sufficient). I'd say that is presumption met. Curbon7 (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree and I'd note the comment below, there is no good reason why he is even in the ADB. Mztourist (talk) 14:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the notion of assessing notability by what participants feel is or is not notable, rather than by the strength of sourcing. There is an debate to be had about whether or not the ADB entry is alone sufficient, but I think the argument I just don't think it's notable is a very poor one. Curbon7 (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

We are questioning why he is even listed in the ADB and so questioning its quality as a source. Mztourist (talk) 03:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Certainly something worth bringing up at WT:Notability (people)/WP:RSN, if there is a pattern. Curbon7 (talk) 04:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Normally I'd support the inclusion of anyone with an entry in a national dictionary of biography, but I'm really struggling to see why he was included. Just a soldier who was killed in action. What distinguishes him from the millions of others? Or even the many thousands of other Australian casualties of war? Is he intended to be representative of the ordinary men who were killed in Vietnam? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: I don't see the notability either, appears to be just another soldier doing his job. Not sure why he's listed in the national biography, can you pay to get featured in it? Oaktree b (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
• Merge into Operation Bribie Graywalls (talk) 05:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Edward Henry Burke Cooper

Edward Henry Burke Cooper (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)

All referencing appears to be from Oxford, UK-specific remembrance group publications. Cooper served honorably, and died, for an incredibly honorable cause but Wikipedia is not a memorial. GPL93 (talk) 04:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Spain, and United Kingdom. GPL93 (talk) 04:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep - I've added four citations from books that mention him. (Most sources refer to him under his stage name "Edward Burke".) Nvss132 (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Most are quick mentions and don't appear to go in-depth on the subject. I'm not sure that's enough to establish notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Steve Sarvi

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

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

Redirect to 2008 United States House of Representatives elections in Minnesota. This article fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. This person is a former congressional candidate and former mayor. The election itself was particularly unnoteworthy and has had no lasting signficance. Local politicians are not automatically notable, nor are they not automatically not notable. Reasons a local politician could be notable are longevity in service (Robert L. Butler, Margaret Doud, or Hilmar Moore) or misconduct (Betty Loren-Maltese or Rita Crundwell) or being a local politician who happens to be famous for another reason (Clint Eastwood was Mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California in the late 1980s.

While this article does not mention it, he has since continued his career as a city administrator in other Minnesota municipalities, but the coverage there is run of the mill coverage of any city administrator. There is nothing so unique about it that it warrants the city administrator himself having an article. In an effort to add information so the article focuses on more facts it goes into his professional history in a lot of detail, but that is a mask for a lack of GNG. Mpen320 (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, and Minnesota. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:NPOL and does not have enough non-campaign related WP:SIGCOV to establish notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Stanley Gilbert Pickard

Stanley Gilbert Pickard (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 Distinguished Flying Medal is nowhere near a Victoria Cross, and that's the only claim to notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. One third-level decoration (and even that's inaccurate, as he had the DFC rather than the DFM). No other reason given for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Conquest of Sindan

Conquest of Sindan (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)

Examining the sources The article appears to push a caste-POV rather than provide clear information about the military conflict. From John F. Richards' source, there is only a single line about the conflict, which is part of a larger table listing numerous minor conflicts. This brief mention does not reference Arabs, Abbasids, or Sindh; it simply notes that a commander named Bhoja expelled a Muslim garrison from a place called Sindan in 839. There is no mention of caste, Abbasids, or Arabs in this reference. The article's author cites Richards inaccurately (Richards didn't cover the area which the author cited).

The sources by H.C. Ray and Al-Baladhuri fall under WP:RAJ and WP:AGEMATTERS, and K.M. Munshi's "Glory That Was Gurjara Desa" praises the Gurjar caste without describing the conflict in depth or mentioning the Abbasids or Sindh province (not even the year). Likewise, R.C. Majumdar, Praful Kartha, and Hem Chandra Ray do not mention a conflict in Sindhan between the Abbasids and the Rajput confederacy. The assumption that the Muslims defeated by Bhoja in 839 were Abbasids and that Sindh was a Caliphal province is clearly original research and synthesis of sources.

None of the sections accurately describe the "conquest"; they discuss unrelated events, and the lack of in-depth coverage makes it clear that the article fails WP:GNG. Only about 5% of the article covers the respective event, and that is based on a single line by J.F. Richards. The author has created similar articles that contain original research and caste POV pushing. The context can be found in the article List of early Hindu–Muslim military conflicts in the Indian subcontinent, and none of the listed conflicts in that article have enough notability to warrant a separate article. Fails WP:GNG, and the article is a product of WP:SYNTH and OR. Imperial^[AFCND] 07:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Saudi Arabia, and India. Imperial^[AFCND] 07:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note to the closer:

Please review the background and edit history of the voters (whether they are for "keep" or "delete"). Articles related to Indian history, especially those concerning wars, battles, and sieges, are often sensitive and have been subject to active meatpuppetry for a long time. Kindly disregard comments from active POV pushers, as I discovered this article through the contributions of one.--Imperial^[AFCND] 07:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: no WP:SIGCOV — fails WP:GNG; what makes this a more obvious delete is that this article's main source (Richards) lists this engagement as just one of 90 other routine engagements, the vast majority of which are in no way notable. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: lacks notability, contains pov pushing, and is clearly Wikipedia:SYNTH. Just another one of these slew of low quality articles within the contentious topic area. Someguywhosbored (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Bhutala

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

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

No reliable sources (WP:RS) mention a "Battle of Bhutala," nor do any of the references cited in the article. The article lacks notability, as even the authors Srivastav Ashoka and Somani Ram Vallabh are unsure about the year the battle occurred, and they cannot confirm if the leader was Iltutmish of the Delhi Sultanate. Neither the background nor the battle sections provide details about the events related to this alleged battle.

The battle section is a direct copy of a primary Indian inscription from Hamir Mada Mardan, dated to the 13th century and written by one of the participants, making it unreliable. The aftermath section is disorganized, failing to specify details about the war, belligerents, or aftermath. The article consists of WP:SYNTH and original research, with no reliable sources confirming the battle or its details. As such, the article fails the notability criteria. Imperial^[AFCND] 06:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and India. Imperial^[AFCND] 06:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note to the closer:

Please review the background and edit history of the voters (whether they are for "keep" or "delete"). Articles related to Indian history, especially those concerning wars, battles, and sieges, are often sensitive and have been subject to active meatpuppetry for a long time. Kindly disregard comments from active POV pushers, as I discovered this article through the contributions of one.--Imperial^[AFCND] 06:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: While I think this is not a hoax (or at least not a recent one), as it is mentioned in a few unreliable sources, but just a bunch of OR, there clearly isn't a single mention of even the existence of this battle in reliable sources, meaning it fails WP:GNG (and WP:NEVENT as no lasting consequences or large scope). — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 10:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
• Keep It contains reliable sources and I can't find any reason for not passing WP:GNG it clearly passes WP:GNG. Raged Pratihar (talk) 08:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Raged Pratihar: Most of the references ([22] [23] [24] [25]), do not even mention the word "Bhutala".

  The two that do ([26] [27]), both deduce of a historical drama I can't find a trance of ("Hammirmadmardanam" or "Hamir Mada Mardam") that there was a battle at that place, but are not sure when or between whom. Also these sources look reliable and independent, WP:GNG also requires WP:SIGCOV, and merely stating existence is not significant. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 13:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: fails rs and notability. As imperial has mentioned, this contentious topic area has been a breeding zone for meat and sockpuppet POV pushers. Also want to point out that Raged Pratihar has already been suspected of sock-puppetry. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/R2dra Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Jhala Man Singh

Jhala Man Singh (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)

While there are several passing WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of this figure in Indian history, I can find no WP:SIGCOV of Jhala Man Singh/Bida Jhala/Jhala Manna. (The sources provided also include only trivial mentions or are unreliable per WP:NEWSORGINDIA.) Disputed PROD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

* Keep Jhala Man singh was a rajput general of Maharana Pratap who had a great contribution in Battle of Haldighati

See sources Mewar & the Mughal Emperors (1526-1707 A.D.) - Page 94 Man Singh Jhala was in the command of left wing...and was assisted by Jhala Bida of Badi - Sadri

Akbar the Great: Political history, 1542-1605 A.D clearly mentions Jhala Bida of Badi Sadri Raged Pratihar (talk) 05:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC). Suspected sock of R2dra[28].

• Delete This is part of the ongoing caste-based bias in Indian history. The practice of caste pushing has migrated to Wikipedia, often through coordinated efforts (meatpuppetry indeed). Creating articles for self-gratification and caste pride is becoming increasingly common on Wikipedia. Fails enough notability and not enough significance to have a seperate article, and the article body itself is biased and OR.--Imperial^[AFCND] 07:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect In light of offering of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS above, I went further through the sources. This article is a duplicate/WP:CONTENTFORK of Man Singh I, who led troops at the Battle of Haldighati. Consider Raged Pratihar's sources:

@Raged Pratihar Please stop posting images into the AfD discussion, it messes up the formatting. You have not addressed what the sources I quoted say, you have simply made an assertion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

::::@Dclemens1971 dont get confused btw Man Singh and Jhala Manna ::::Read this article Battle of Haldighati Jhala Man Singh is referred as Jhala Bida here. Raged Pratihar (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The sources are not clear about this distinction, see above. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, topic clearly has no coverage in depth, based on WP:GNGSOURCECRIT, fail in Notability and page was created by master (R2dra)[29] and now mostly edited by sock (Raged Pratihar)[30].2402:AD80:134:D2C9:1:0:A2C0:1FAB (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Strong delete - only substantial contributions are by a likely sockpuppet, but not eligible for G5 since it wasn't created by the sockuppet. Jdcomix (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Derbent (1922)

Battle of Derbent (1922) (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 is poorly written and relies heavily on unreliable, biased sources. Insanityclown1 (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Iraq, Turkey, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Insanityclown1 What makes you think the sources are unreliable and biased? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I have strong concerns that given that this was a battle that the british allegedly participated in, there are no british records of the event that I have been able to track down. Insanityclown1 (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı: It would be hard for me (and presumably others with poor Turkish) to check the sources. From your user name I assume your native language is Turkish. Perhaps if you wrote the article in Turkish Wikipedia and used the “alıntı” parameter to quote from the sources then readers would be able to check more easily whether it is correct. If you cannot do that then please at least specify the page numbers. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete Sources not good enough - for example the map is described as Source Found in a Book Author Unknown author Chidgk1 (talk) 08:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Samsun clashes (1920)

Samsun clashes (1920) (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 doesn't seem notable, sources are not reliable or verifiable. Insanityclown1 (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Turkey, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment tr:Samsun is featured but as far as I can tell does not mention this - I have linked this discussion on that article talk page in the hope someone knows better than me. Also if the clashes with British were significant I guess one of you military experts can find an English language source Chidgk1 (talk) 06:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I've searched and have not found anything. Insanityclown1 (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

They have replied by pointing me to tr:Samsun_tarihi#Millî_Mücadele_sırasında but I am not competant to say which of the cites in that are reliable Chidgk1 (talk) 08:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Tal Afar uprising

Tal Afar 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)

This doesn't seem like a notable event. There are no records cited of casualty figures or combatant numbers. The British commander isn't even noted. Not to mention, this article is written pretty poorly and with a clear nationalist slant. Insanityclown1 (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Iraq, Turkey, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Did the nominator conduct a WP:BEFORE search? The nominator would benefit from reading WP:NEXIST and WP:DINC. Curbon7 (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

2024 Bangladeshi military coup

2024 Bangladeshi military coup (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 was no military coup in Bangladesh in 2024. The article's central claim is factually incorrect, which misleads readers and distorts the historical record. The resignation of Sheikh Hasina was a direct result of widespread student movements, not a military intervention. The student protests demanded her resignation, leading to her decision to step down. Sheikh Hasina was given a 45-minute window to safely exit the country, a measure taken to protect her from the potentially angry crowd. This critical context is missing from the article, which portrays the events inaccurately. For more information please see: https://www.prothomalo.com/politics/jvacuciaoy —MdsShakil (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bangladesh. —MdsShakil (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

This article should be merged with Resignation of Sheikh Hasina —MdsShakil (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I am changing my comment from merge to delete as already proved that there are no military coup, civilian government has take control the power. This article is a WP:HOAX. Some organisation trying to spread propaganda, we should follow WP:NEWSORGINDIA —MdsShakil (talk) 11:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• I think you should not delete right now, instead you can add the word "alleged" BlackRider90 (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  This is not right information as Bangladesh Army haven't take control, rather they are passing it to interim govt. So this article should be deleted immediately. Afshana.diya (talk) 05:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• Merge per the reason showed. Also I wonder if the creator of this article really care about writing article in the neutral and correct way. Because please look at the edit. The editor wants to indicate that Non-cooperation movement (2024) is the result of this coup. But in reality, Hasina's resignation started days after the movement. This is not only hoax, but also original research. Mehedi Abedin 23:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  I thought that Infobox element mentions related events. Apologies. Reverted. Waonderer (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Don't Delete, Rename Article: There are articles that have used the term "coup". Please refer google search results. The 45-minute window is the main reason for such claims in most of them (Examples: 1, 2 3). If that is not enough to justify, I would suggest to rename the Article and move it to another more appropriate title, instead of deletion. Waonderer (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Waonderer You misunderstood. The intelligence agency told her that angry protesters was coming to her residence and would arrive in 45 minutes. To leave the country safely, she had to resign within that time. Please read the Prothom Alo article. This article may now be considered a WP:HOAX and it might have been merged with the related article. —MdsShakil (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  Undestood. Due to the language barrier issues, I hadn't referred it first. Just read the translation now. The sources I have referred say "The Army gave the ultimatum". Can't comment on reliability of all the sources. Even in that case, this should be merged with another article or renamed, not deleted. As this article contains information that is not present in other articles.. Waonderer (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  My personal impression is it is largely certain sections of the Indian media which are referring to this as a "coup", and international media tend to avoid the term. Probably in part that reflects geopolitical calculations–Sheikh Hasina was generally perceived as friendly by India, and there is concern in India about whether a new government will be as friendly. I think it would be reasonable for whatever article to cover the debate about whether it constitutes a "coup", but there is presently insufficient consensus in reliable sources to describe it as one in Wikipedia's own voice. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Isn't the rationale for calling it a coup is that it's the military that took control after the resignation over some other political organ such as the president or the parliament? I mean I've found a bunch of sources calling it or at least suggesting that it looks like a coup. . I can't really say anything about the reliability of those sources other than the NYT and Reuters but it's what I found. Yvan Part (talk) 23:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  State power is not vested in the army or armed forces; they still function under the President. An interim government is being formed to run the country and may be sworn in tomorrow. The army is assisting in forming this government. —MdsShakil (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It's kind of like the coup in Niger in 2023, where its military listened to anti-France and pro-Russian protesters. This can easily be considered a coup. Block345 (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this likely technically counts as a coup – but the reality is most RS aren't calling it one (at least not yet), and Wikipedia has to go by what RS are calling it, not the technical definition of the term. Personally I think the term "coup" may well become more accepted by RS over the time – but we'll have to wait and see whether that happens, and if so how long it takes. If, a few years down the track, the term "coup" becomes well-established, we could always consider resurrecting this article. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 07:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The new government has just been sworn in, so the rumors of a military coup or military rule are not true. —MdsShakil (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

If the military forces out one civilian government and installs a new one, that still technically counts as a coup. Also, it is still very early days, and we'll have to see how much influence the military exerts on the new government behind the scenes. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Merge then delete. Add important information to Non-cooperation movement (2024) and then delete the article (I share the same opinion as আফতাবুজ্জামান). The current article mischaracterizes the situation and uses extensive amounts of original research.

The military did not force Sheikh Hasina to resign but rather the situation forced her to resign and flee, even told before that the military was running out of ammunition (according to her son, she considered resignation as early as Aug 3 but he now denies that Hasina ever resigned on her own). Furthermore, a junta was not established following the coup, and several government members maintained power, including the president. Hence, there was no military coup but rather a situation similar to the 2022 Sri Lankan protests.

An article solely focusing on the resignation can be created later. INFIYNJTE (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

References

• Speedy merge to Non-cooperation movement (2024); there was no "military coup"; even if the title was changed an article specifically about the action of Hasina resigning is not necessary at all, and any content related to the situation is already sufficiently covered at Non-cooperation movement (2024). Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• Merge. I believe there are points mentioned in this article that can be a part of Non-cooperation movement (2024). Hence, we can merge this article to that. I'm Here to Help You (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
• Merge: I agree this isn't an actual coup. But the information in it is relevant enough. So it should be merged into 2024 Bangladesh quota reform movement. Linkin Prankster (talk) 03:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• Merge Delete per nomination: while Bangladesh is not a stranger to coups in the past, it seems this time that the anger of the general public ultimately lead to Sheikh Hasina resigning, so it feels more like a revolution than a coup. Therefore the current title appears misleading, even though the protesters don't want the army involved (source: BBC News). --Minoa (talk) 07:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Changed to delete due to Muhammad Yunus (a civilian) now leading an interim government. So therefore the article nominated for discussion here is a combination of WP:HOAX and WP:POVPUSH. --Minoa (talk) 08:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect to Resignation of Sheikh Hasina. Some sources are already calling this a coup, but most are not. I think it is really going to be determined by how the military acts in the coming days/weeks/months. If they decide to remain in power for an extended period of military rule, then it is likely the "coup" term will eventually become mainstream. Conversely, if they quickly step aside in favour of a return to civilian rule, it will probably remain a matter of controversy whether it counts as one. In other words, WP:TOOSOON. If reliable sources start to consistently call it a "coup", we can always resurrect this as an article. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  That article is now a redirect to Non-cooperation movement (2024). -- Beland (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Some sources are calling this a coup. Keep it for for now. It was the top defence officials that gave her the ultimatum. The very same officials are forming the interim government. If a new government is democratically elected soon the article should be deleted. Parth.297 (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

That's just a report. There's no confirmation she was given an ultimatum. Many sources state she resigned due to the protests. Linkin Prankster (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

THIS IS VERY MUCH AN HONEST ARTICLE. IT'S ACTUALLY RATHER A MILITARY COUP SUPPORTED BY US. SO KEEP IT. 106.66.41.81 (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

keep this article 106.66.41.81 (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Can some admin please strike this comment? POV isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Linkin Prankster (talk) 05:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Everyone's entitled to their opinions on editorial questions; they are not articles. It's unlikely, though, anyone will particularly act on those that aren't grounded in reliable sources or Wikipedia policies. -- Beland (talk) 02:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The IP editor attempted to add a propaganda source according to this edit, before settling on a BBC source, so I can understand why Linkin Prankster was quite cautious about the context of said comments. --Minoa (talk) 05:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Merge relevant information to Non-cooperation movement (2024) and then delete. There was no coup (some foreign media may reported that way, most likely they misunderstood, as Afd nominator explained above), the article title is simply incorrect and misleading. President Mohammed Shahabuddin still in power and everything including military still function under the president. -- আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• Delete no WP:RS reported a coup in Bangladesh, this is WP:OR terminology. Dilbaggg (talk) 05:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Speedy delete: No military coup happended in Bangladesh. Army didn't take over nor any emergency was called. The informations here are not supported by Bangladeshi and international media. Don't merge or redirect as it's informations are wrong. Some non-Bangladeshi media may use the term coup but it is misconception. Wiki N Islam (talk) 08:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: The event in question was a people's revolution that lasted 36 days. It is important to differentiate between a people's revolution and a military coup. An interim civilian government was established during this period, led by a Nobel Peace Prize laureate.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 01:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
• Speedy delete there was no coup. X (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
• Merge; then delete There was a regime-change but not a coup. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Non-cooperation movement (2024). The articles cover the same topic, that article is much more complete, and "military coup" is misleading. I don't see anything to merge; but I don't think this needs to be deleted and content could be merged later. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Gamaji Bhangare

Gamaji Bhangare (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:CASTE cruft bio created by IP socks of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala. First tried to hijack Gamaliel when that failed started this page through another IP hop. Gotitbro (talk) 10:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, History, Military, India, and Maharashtra. Gotitbro (talk) 10:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. I can not verify any sources except for one but that is not on the subject of this page. RangersRus (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Although the article is not properly written but it meets the WP:GNG and WP:V per the cited sources.2409:4051:38B:9FBC:2307:730F:F39B:ED93 (talk) 03:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: article is related to the Maratha Army of the Maratha empire that ruled northern India from 1600_1800 and also meets Verifiability.195.170.172.189 (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Nicolaus von Braun

Nicolaus von Braun (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 a weird one. This guy was quartermaster of the garrison regiment of Malmo, Sweden in the early 1700s. Which seems to have been the town guard. Obviously in modern terms being a department chief in a city's police department wouldn't warrant a Wikipedia article by itself, but does it historically? I don't honestly know. The impetus for the Wikipedia article is a 30-page article in a local history yearbook, the citation for which I've cleaned up with a URL which I invite commenters to look at, especially if you speak Swedish. I doubt there are any other internet-accessible sources.

The source material is written in an academic style with citations, but many seem to be general ones for historical context, rather than ones that actually mention von Braun. He seems to only be documented in primary sources found by the chapter's writers, which in theory is fine. Their book chapter is a secondary source which Wikipedia can cite. It is likely to be the only valid source for Wikipedia on von Braun, though. Is that enough? Again, I don't honestly know. This is an AFD where I'm asking what you all think, rather than saying we definitely need to delete the article.

Reading the source through auto-translation it seems to be much more speculative than the Wikipedia article implies, with much of the information about von Braun being guesses and suppositions. It does seem like a bit of hyper-local history. In Wikipedia terms, it will probably be difficult to create meaningful inbound links (I found this article trying to create links to old orphan articles). And it's hard to imagine who's going to be getting useful information from a vague article about a city guard quartermaster from 300 years ago. I know you could make the "it's not useful..." argument for lots of Wikipedia articles, and Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia so it's fine to have articles on very obscure things, but in this case, I mean... who actually is needing this vague information about a city guard quartermaster who didn't do anything notable?

The article was created by a user who was long ago banned, with the central issue seeming to be stretching sources way too far to write content on hyper-local topics... which sounds exactly like what might be going on here right? Here2rewrite (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: I ran the name through Project Runeberg [31] and nothing pops up. If there's no biography there, I'm going to say this person isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Military, and Sweden. C F A 💬 04:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability is not importance so the significance of his office or whether he "did anything notable" is not relevant. All that matters if whether there are enough reliable sources to write a basic biography. Between the thirty pages written about him in the academic edited volume already cited and the literature list therein (most of which are not primary, and several appear to contain significant coverage based on how Norström & Bjernehed cite them, e.g. Den Aran Pommern harstammande svenska atten von Braun and Den med skoldebref forldnade men ej riddarhuset Introducerade svenska adelns attar-tailor). This is a local historical subject but that doesn't exclude it from Wikipedia – Malmö is a city of 350,000 people with an 800 year history, lots of people will be interested in it, even if the nominator isn't. What it does mean is that we shouldn't expect the sources to be an easy google away; they'll be in local libraries, in Swedish, and likely not digitised. – Joe (talk) 07:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  But we don't have these sources, likely existing isn't good enough. All we have is one biography. Oaktree b (talk) 04:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  No, I listed three specific sources. There's Nörstrom & Bjernehed, "Nicolaus von Braun - the major city of Malmö 1705–1710", available online; Schlegel, Den med sköldebref förlänade men ej å Riddarhuset introducerade svenska adelns ättar-taflor, available online; and Sundberg, Den Frȧn pommern Härstammande svenska ätten von braun, available in several libraries. And that's just from a five minute search by somebody who doesn't understand Swedish very well. Sources don't have to be easy to find to be useable. – Joe (talk) 08:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  WP:NOTGENEALOGY and the latter two are certainly genealogical reference books. Geschichte (talk) 10:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  WP:NOTGENEALOGY says family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic. What part of that excludes considering independent, secondary, reliable sources on genealogy when assessing notability? – Joe (talk) 10:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  Do those sources contain WP:Significant coverage, i.e. non-genealogical coverage, of the subject? TompaDompa (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. I do not agree that the sources mentioned above are significant coverage. Geschichte (talk) 13:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Marko Čarapić

Marko Čarapić (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)

6 out of the 7 citations are for Google Books, and I see no inherent notability. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 04:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Serbia. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 04:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Courtesy ping to AfC accepter SafariScribe. Curbon7 (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Additionally, can the nominator please clarify their rationale. I do not see how having coverage in books is an indicator of non-notability, and is actually quite the contrary from reality as we want coverage from (among other places) books. Inherent notability is also not a thing. Curbon7 (talk) 03:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
• @Curbon7, I still don't understand the nominator's rationale. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  Apologies, I had it in my watchlist but never saw a mention of me. "Inherent notability" is just notability but I put an "inherent" in front of it, probably a bad choice of words on my part. I just see no notability besides a few books, and that's why I AfD'd it. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 14:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. The nominator should be willing to reply in this discussion, but on the other hand the article doesn't make me grasp what Marko Čarapić did. WP:NOTINHERITED is possibly being failed here. Geschichte (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep I dont see anything wrong with the information provided. Yes, there should be more information but this article is fine as a stub. Боки ☎ ✎ 18:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I also don't follow the deletion rationale. Coverage in a few books is very respectable if the coverage is significant. Are you stating you'd prefer a mention on a website to a book?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - per Боки. Nvss132 (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Katoch–Sikh war

Katoch–Sikh 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)

A few unreliable sources- Ref 1) by Khazan Singh was published in 1914, and the author is not a historian. Ref 8) by Mark Brentnall is a self published source with no information available about the author. Ref 7) by Amarinder Singh, the author is a politician not a historian. In addition, refs 2) and 3) are improperly cited, do not have a page number or a proper url to a page discussing the subject at hand and thus fail WP:V. The remaining sources make only passing mention of this battle/conflicts between Sansar Chand Katoch and Ranjit Singh, and subsequently focus far more on Chand and Ranjit Singh's alliance against the Nepalis; the actual "war" content between the 2 in these books fails WP:SIGCOV by a long shot. The article's information is best suited as a prelude/context in the page Nepal-Sikh war due to the aforementioned proportionality of coverage surrounding the two's alliance. In addition, the creator of the article created numerous low quality pages to inundate Wikipedia with articles aggrandizing his religion's military history.Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: Article was dePRODed by a sockpuppet who has been persistently harassing me-[32]. See [33] and [34]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Sikhism, and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: As per nom Raged Pratihar (talk) 08:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete low quality article that’s badly sourced as per nom. Someguywhosbored (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear opinions from editors with more experience at AFD and, ideally, with this subject area.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Operation Atilla (Turkish Invasion of Cyprus)

Operation Atilla (Turkish Invasion of Cyprus) (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 should be deleted, as it seems to overlap with Turkish invasion of Cyprus. LR.127 (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Cyprus, and Turkey. LR.127 (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: WP:REDUNDANTFORK Aintabli (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  Changing my vote to keep as I overlooked the recent move and the overall context of the article. Aintabli (talk) 06:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: WP:SPINOFF The article Turkish invasion of Cyprus only provides an overview of the military activities in three short paragraphs, however this article vastly expands on that information. Any overlap is just enough to provide context to this extra detail Farrier-as (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep as a legitimate SPINOFF. Not sure how this could have been nominated or supported. The PRODding without as much as an edit summary was a disgrace. If there is no case whatsoever for deletion, an article should NEVER be considered for PROD! Yet another user moved the article without any debate. Maybe we should limit editing access to this article. gidonb (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• Speedy keep: per WP:SPINOFF and other keep votes above. The sub-topic is notable enough and there is enough sourced information for it’s own article. Lordseriouspig 22:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete or at the very least change the name to "Combat operations during the invasion of Cyprus" as operation atilla was the name of the Turkish military operation
• Keep and Move back to its original title Military operations during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. The article is a legitimate spinoff for military operations during the invasion. Confusion seems to be caused by the fact that earlier this year it was unilaterally and without discussion moved to its current somewhat misleading title.--Staberinde (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  Agree with that too ShovelandSpade (talk) 05:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep and revert name to original title. Constantine ✍ 10:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. Please remember to sign your comments. And don't worry about the article page title, that can be discussed if the article is Kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 5 August 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