Knowledge (XXG)

:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

Military history
WikiProject
Main project page + talk
News & open tasks
Academy
Core work areas
Assessment
Main page
 → A-Class FAQ
 → B-Class FAQ
 → A-Class review requests
 → Assessment requests
 → Current statistics
 → Review alert box
Contests
Main page
 → Contest entries
 → Scoring log archive
 → Scoreboard archive
Coordination
Main page + talk
 → Handbook
 → Bugle newsroom talk
 → ACM eligibility tracking
 → Discussion alert box
Incubator
Main page
 → Current groups and initiatives
Special projects
Majestic Titan talk
Member affairs
Membership
Full list talk
 → Active / Inactive
 → Userboxes
Awards
Main page talk
 →A-Class medals
 →A-Class crosses
 → WikiChevrons w/ Oak Leaves
Resources
Guidelines
Content
Notability
Style
Templates
Infoboxes
 → Command structure doc · talk
 → Firearm cartridge doc · talk
 → Military award doc · talk
 → Military conflict doc · talk
 → Military installation doc · talk
 → Military memorial doc · talk
 → Military person doc · talk
 → Military unit doc · talk
 → National military doc · talk
 → Military operation doc · talk
 → Service record doc · talk
 → Militant organization doc · talk
 → Weapon doc · talk
Navigation boxes doc · talk
 → Campaignboxes doc · talk
Project banner doc · talk
Announcement & task box
 → Discussion alert box
 → Review alert box
Template design style doc · talk
Showcase
Featured articles 1504
Featured lists 149
Featured topics 32
Featured pictures 538
Featured sounds 69
Featured portals 5
A-Class articles 685
A-Class lists 40
Good articles 5,538
Automated lists
Article alerts
Most popular articles
New articles
Nominations for deletion
Task forces
General topics
Fortifications
Intelligence
Maritime warfare
Military aviation
Military culture, traditions, and heraldry
Military biography
Military historiography
Military land vehicles
Military logistics and medicine
Military memorials and cemeteries
Military science, technology, and theory
National militaries
War films
Weaponry
Nations and regions
African military history
Asian military history
Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history
Balkan military history
Baltic states military history
British military history
Canadian military history
Chinese military history
Dutch military history
European military history
French military history
German military history
Indian military history
Italian military history
Japanese military history
Korean military history
Middle Eastern military history
Nordic military history
North American military history
Ottoman military history
Polish military history
Roman and Byzantine military history
Russian, Soviet and CIS military history
South American military history
South Asian military history
Southeast Asian military history
Spanish military history
United States military history
Periods and conflicts
Classical warfare
Medieval warfare
Early Muslim military history
Crusades
Early Modern warfare
Wars of the Three Kingdoms
American Revolutionary War
Napoleonic era
American Civil War
World War I
World War II
Cold War
Post-Cold War
Related projects
Blades
Espionage
Firearms
Pritzker Military Museum & Library
Piracy
Ships
edit · changes
Deletion Sorting
Project

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 {{Knowledge (XXG):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 {{Knowledge (XXG):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 Knowledge (XXG)'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:
Purge page cache watch

Military and combat

Raid of Carpetania (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 Notable to remain as an Article, It should be redirected. Untamed1910 (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Untamed1910, as stated, your nomination statement is considered your "vote", you don't get to make a second. If you want to change your nomination statement, go ahead strike the portion you no longer are arguing for and add this statement. Just a comment, to change an article to a Redirect, you didn't need to bring it to AFD and you also haven't specified a Redirect target article. So, this opinion is likely to go nowhere. Liz 05:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Reliable sources DO exist about this event, see:
Javext (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Battle at Tel al-Hawa (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:SYNTH: No source evidence that a series of engagements in the vicinity actually constitute a battle as such and the term is not a Knowledge (XXG) artifice. Tagged for notability last month but no evidence of any discussion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 16:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

1979 Bangladesh-Indian skirmishes (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 significant casualties, no WP:LASTING coverage. Knowledge (XXG) discourages articles based on WP:NOTNEWS and this is nothing more than that. Nxcrypto Message 14:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep - article seems well sourced, and several sources are in the late 2010s, some 40 years after the conflict itself, making a nonsense of the “no lasting coverage” claim… it’s… difficult not to see this as politically based spamming since the last couple of nominations on Indian-Bangladeshi border skirmishes from this same editor are just cut and paste, and they have nominated other similar articles last week too… I’ll assume good faith though, and just say that I disagree that the article meets the criteria for deletion based on the merits. Absurdum4242 (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep It is a notable incident, Lasting effect? It did have some. Nxcrypto, I noticed that you are copying the same message in similar AfD Discussions, Without even checking the page and It's content and aftermath a lot. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (Message)
  • True The 1979 clash is very notable and it does not violate Knowledge (XXG)'s standards for inclusion. Nxcrypto for some reason is copying and pasting the same message in multiple AfD Discussions, And some people will not check the page and just want to delete it, So they will say "It does not establish WP:GNG and WP:Lasting", Even when, It is clearly notable event with coverage many years later. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (Message)
  • Citations - The page has several citations including from books and newspapers, some require subscription or have limited information but I think the page meets with General Notability Guidelines. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (Talk with BangladeshiEditorInSylhet)
2019 Bangladesh-Indian border clash (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 significant casualties, no WP:LASTING coverage. Knowledge (XXG) discourages articles based on WP:NOTNEWS and this is nothing more than that. Nxcrypto Message 14:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Hemshin (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)

Fail to see how this is notable. Whole article is probably WP:SYNTH. Creator of this article conveniently added no pages for the citations, and when I looked into one of two of them (can't access the other, though it is likely the same case), I found no mention about this event . I'm not surprised, since they also misused citations at Han–Xiongnu War (215 BC–200 BC) HistoryofIran (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

If I were a Palestinian, I would fight those who occupied my land (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 claim to notability, and was clearly created with a political slant. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Any chance we could WP:SNOW this? Seems fairly decided. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Onceinawhile (talk) 08:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Fatmir Mehmet (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)

Bio stub of a Kosovo liberation fighter whose death seems to have attracted widespread coverage, though the independence of the sources cited is not clear to me. Tagged for notability for nine months so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Oleksandr Mykhailovych Vasylynyuk (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)

Bio of a recently deceased Ukrainian subject who does not appear to be notable. Apparent memorial page. Mccapra (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Jammu (1808) (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)

KM Panikkar is the only reliable source presented here. Autar Singh Sandhu is not a reliable source as there is only one book that can be traced to him which was written in 1935; there are zero mentions of his educational credentials, bibliography, or reviews of scholarly work available, and he was deprecated by an admin in the RSN-. The link to GULAB SINGH (1792-1857) is broken. Panikkar does make some mention of this battle (in page 15 and 16), but the information is not sufficient enough to warrant an article.

Note: Two Sikh nationalist sockmasters have been undermining my AFDs, one is the Truthfindervert, the second is an unrelenting sockmaster who has been stalking me for 3 years now-HaughtonBrit. His two most recent sockpuppets, Alvin1783 and Festivalfalcon873 were sabotaging my AFDs and making multiple votes in AFDs to retain articles which aggrandized their religion. Even after their blocks, HaughtonBrit has been continuing his campaign against me-here he deleted my PROD; 2 admins have said that this was clearly HaughtonBrit block evading- and . Even after that, he didn't stop and made an illegitimate vote in my AFD-. Please be weary of any suspicious new/burner accounts or proxies who vote here as they are almost certainly going to be HaughtonBrit. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Black Silence: the Lety Survivors Speak (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)

Found no reliable, significant sources. This recent source does call it "controversial", but does not specify why. That does indicate that there may be coverage I was unable to find. There is discussion about the author's investigation into this topic but the author has written several books on it and the coverage isn't about this one specifically, so imo it should go on the author's page if there aren't sources about this book specifically. The one source in the ELs might be coverage of this book, or it might not, could not find it. Redirect to author Paul Polansky? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

OSINT for 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)

Non-notable organisation, lacking WP:RS to meet WP:NORG, WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Siege of Oujda (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 created by a now-blocked sockpuppet who had a habit of creating somewhat embellished articles about North African military history. There was some sort of military action in Oujda in 1314 but much of the detail here isn’t supported by the sources and I think TNT is appropriate. Mccapra (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Looks like one of many pseudo-puff pieces about a military engagement that doesn't get more than a sentence or two at most in the cited sources and therefore, logically, could never warrant its own stand-alone article on Knowledge (XXG) per WP:NOTABILITY and other content policies. R Prazeres (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Maurice Starkey (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. The justification for the creation of the article in 2007 was that Starkey "was one of the last surviving veterans of WWI" even though he joined 8 months after the war ended. Both references (which are now permanent dead links) appear to be from his local paper and one is his obituary. I can't find anything when searching for further references except for a clipping of his wife's obit in the same paper. GPL93 (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

From what I can gather, it used to be that any possible WWI veteran was considered notable by some back when this article was created, even if it was WWI-adjacent at best. Some have yet to have an AfD, such as this one and Robley Rex. There was an AfD a few months ago for a guy who showed up for induction into the Army on November 11, 1918 and was just dismissed because the armistice had been signed earlier that day and an earlier AfD was closed as keep with the reasoning being that he "assumed the risk" and that made him one of the "last surviving WWI veterans". Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
2005 Bangladesh-India border clash (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 description of events is one-sided, lacking verification from multiple credible sources. Additionally, there are significant discrepancies in the reported details and conflicting accounts that make it unreliable. The article's content does not meet the standards for inclusion and accuracy expected in a balanced historical record. Nxcrypto Message 16:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and India. Nxcrypto Message 16:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. Spiderone 16:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Lacks any lasting coverage. Lorstaking (talk) 01:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep - It is a notable clash. If you would like to delete this, Please also delete some pages About clashes between India and Pakistan. I Will attempt to add more sources, I kind of forgot about this page, that I created. I should have added more sources earlier. User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 03:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    Article most of the current citations are Bangladesh-based like Dhaka report, The Daily Observer Bangladesh,  bdnews24. Furthermore, there are inconsistencies in the reported dates of the clash—some sources mention April 16, others April 17, and some April 18. These discrepancies undermine the article’s reliability. The incident story have various contradiaction as compared to Indian news site with Bangladesh based news site. Additionally, minor conflicts like these, which lack significant international coverage, often do not meet the notability criteria required for inclusion on Knowledge (XXG). The comparison to India-Pakistan conflicts is not relevant here, as the notability and coverage of each conflict should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Nxcrypto Message 09:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    I’m a NZer, so totally outside the local political discussions here, but reading the three sources you cite, they all seem to say that the battle took place on Saturday 16, 2005 (all reference it occurring on Saturday). The different dates (16, 17, 18) were the dates the three stories were published in their respective newspapers, and do not show a confusion about the date on which the shootings themselves occurred. This seems fairly well covered in several different newspapers to me, with similar details in each. Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    @Absurdum4242 Welcome to Knowledge (XXG)! It seems you're in a hurry since you've just created your account. I believe that gaining experience takes time. Nxcrypto Message 11:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks. As far as I can tell, the only way to get the experience is to actually do the work to get it, which is what I’m trying to do here. If we are all working in good faith (which I assume we are), statements of fact such as “the articles are confused about dates” should be reasonably easily proven or disproven simply by reading the articles in question, and without a deep knowledge of Knowledge (XXG) policies (which I am never the less trying to gain). Then it’s just a matter of clearly articulating what we think - which I hope I have done, in service of moving towards consensus. Absurdum4242 (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This happens regularly and is nothing surprising. WP:GNG has to be satisfied. Even right now, Bangladesh is saying that Indian BSF is killing Bangladeshis. The above argument against the deletion that "delete some pages About clashes between India and Pakistan" is baseless. Azuredivay (talk) 05:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep The suggestion that different source articles are confused about the dates / give different dates seems to be based on a confusion between the dates the articles were published, and the dates the events themselves were said to have occurred. The sources seem both independent and robust, are numerous, include both local and international news publications (including BBC and Al Jazera), and give details which are consistent between the different articles. The wiki page itself could use some editing for clarity / grammar / neutrality etc, but this does not warrant deletion, it should be edited instead (and I’ll have a go at that tomorrow if I have time).
Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
This comment is by User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (please sign your comments). What are you trying to say here? It sounds like you are making accusations about someone or maybe just about the way AFDs work on Knowledge (XXG). You are not assuming good faith of our discussion closers. Please refrain from casting aspersions. Liz 06:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Also, please do not challenge every editor who has a different opinion from your own. It's called bludgeoning a discussion. Liz 06:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Yeah and it is true, A lot of them have not done it in Good Faith. Liz. Ok sure, I will not challenge every editor. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk)
  • Delete Absurdum4242 is correct that NXcrypto's original rationale for deletion is flawed. Being one-sided or containing discrepancies is not a good reason to delete.
What Absurdum4242 and Tanbiruzzaman don't address, however, is that although there are multiple, independent, reliable sources, except for the India Today retrospective from a couple of weeks after the fact, and the one sentence in The Daily Observer, all are primary source news accounts of the April (Dawn, Australian Broadcasting Corp, bdnews24, Al Jazeera 2) or August (VOA, Al Jazeera 1, BBC) clashes. WP:GNG says notable topics are those that have received "significant attention ... over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Knowledge (XXG)."
Lorstaking and Captain AmericanBurger1775 are correct that there is no coverage that shows a lasting effect. The event was nearly 20 years ago. If historians believed it was significant, they would have written something about it by now, and they haven't. Knowledge (XXG) is not a newspaper, and this article should not be kept. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Hmm, Well Not Really, How would you know that they think it is significant or not? Also, you cannot just say that they would have written something about it by now, That is a person's choice if they want to write about it or not regardless of it being significant, My argument might have some issues, If so, Please reply. Also, What do you define as significant coverage and lasting effect? I am not asking for the community's answer, I am asking for your answer. As what do you think is significant coverage and lasting effects. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this discussion is still active. Remember, your arguments should be grounded in policy and your assessment about whether or not the sources in the article, that have been bought into the discussion or that you have found, are sufficient to provide SIGCOV and establish GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Melvin Storer (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)

Being mistakenly reported killed during the attack on Pearl Harbor doesn't make this sailor notable (unless he was supposedly killed by the Germans). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Filmforme (talk) 06:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Literally millions of Americans were awarded the Asiatic–Pacific Campaign Medal. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. What about the Bronze Star? Filmforme (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
It is not a blanket campaign level medal, but still well below the ANYBIO line which is generally the highest military honor awarded by the subject's nation. Additionally, it appears he was not actually awarded the Bronze Star Medal but rather had bronze service stars on his campaign medal which denote how many specific operations or campaigns participated in within the overall Pacific campaign. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
He didn’t play a notable role in either event, though. And it is still an event and the aftermath of the event. All we have is quick (1-2 paragraph) snippets in local newspapers (ie: "local man re-enlists") except for his mistakenly being reported dead for six days (which still garnered only local coverage). This was incredibly common at the time. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I have been updating the article, including more information I've found at Newspapers.com. There's no question the subject passes WP:GNG, but it is my observation that some may not agree of the reason why he was written about, and not that this isn't a notable topic according to WP:NEXIST.
Storer was not the only one who was considered lost in the attack and later found alive. But it should be noted that his family and home state of Oregon was not notified he survived for weeks, only after they had a funeral service involving Portland's Mayor. The ordeal of Storer initially being lost during a heavily covered historic event is what likely triggered the WP:SIGCOV from media once it turned out he had survived. In addition, he has a first hand account and unique perspective of his own experience, and his involvement with the salvage afterwards.
As for WP:BIO1E, this is a unique case and I agree with @Hawkeye7 that Attack on Pearl Harbor is a long article to consider a redirect. The subject meets WP:NBASIC, though a shorter article covering Storer and others in similar circumstances would be suitable too. WP:PSEUDO applies here and there is coverage on the subject unrelated to the attack: to their expertise as a diver searching for people that were believed to have drowned. 1 2 3 –Filmforme (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Rather routine military career (that is rather briefly described here) and after the war doesn't seem to be much more notable. Reported as passing away Pearl Harbour, then surviving is more of a trivia item than a notable item for wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A lot of additional sourcing was added since this article's nomination. I'd appreciate editors reviewing the article now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 03:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

British army in the Eureka Rebellion (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)

Unnecessary content fork. Content could easily be merged into Eureka Rebellion and List of Eureka Stockade defenders. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 16:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Urutau (3D Printable Firearm) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence found of notability, no independent reliable sources about this. Being offered on some sites is not the same as having the necessary sourcing about the subject. Fram (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that this subject has a significant amount of traction on social media websites like Twitter/X, Reddit, and even LinkedIn. This is difficult to directly cite due to its lack of centralization and login requirements. Still, I would like to think that this subject is notable given that it achieved its publishers' requirements for quality. That said, this subject is relatively new, and I am sure that, in time, more direct evidence of notability will become available. Any suggestions to rectify this in the meantime are appreciated. DreamWeav3r95 (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Urutau is mentioned in Armament Research Services (ARES) Research Report 8: Desktop Firearms Desktop Firearms:
Emergent Small Arms Craft Production Technologies 2023 update page 30-31
https://armamentresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/ARES-Research-Report-No-8-Desktop-Firearms-2023-Update-EARLY-ACCESS.pdf
I think this is enough independent reliable sources about the Urutau right? Superlincoln (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Printing Terror: An Empirical Overview of the Use of 3D-Printed Firearms by Right-Wing Extremists:
However, recent developments within the 3DPF community are concerning, as they seem to focus on further lowering the barriers to entry for producing 3DPF. Noteworthy developments include the ‘Nutty 9,’ an improved bolt design for the FGC-9 consisting of nothing more than four nuts and two bolts screwed into a printed connector piece, and the development of the Urutau—a soon-to-be-released hybrid pistol-caliber carbine—that is said to be significantly easier to build than the FGC-9.
https://ctc.westpoint.edu/printing-terror-an-empirical-overview-of-the-use-of-3d-printed-firearms-by-right-wing-extremists/
Urutau was mentioned in the 3D-Printed Firearms and Terrorism: Trends and Analysis Pertinent to Far-Right Use
5 times
https://www.jstor.org/stable/48778663?seq=2 Superlincoln (talk) 09:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge into List of 3D printed weapons and parts and/or FGC-9. I do not think this meets the GNG yet, though it might be close. The mentions in the academic papers are insufficient to establish notability since they are only trivial, passing mentions with no detail. However, the ARES Research Report is an independent source with several paragraphs on the Urutau. A LinkedIn post by an Assistant Professor at the Royal Military College of Canada seems promising but he admits in the post to having lacking "expertise in that area" thus his post doesn't meet the expertise guideline for self-published sources. As for the blog posts, YouTube videos, and other primary sources, they (in my opinion) all fall well below the bar for verifiability. If another secondary source of the quality, independence and verifiability of the ARES Research Report can be found, I would change my vote. Richard Ye 15:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are three different suggested Merge target articles. Of course, content can be merged to multiple articles but we need a primary article in order to close this AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Merge it into FGC-9 (the primary article) as the gun won't have been designed if FGC-9 did not exist and merge it into the List of 3D printed weapons and parts as the secondary article. Superlincoln (talk) 04:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I still lean heavier towards delete, but more people seem to support a merge or at least not totally deleting the article, and I agree with Richard Ye that List of 3D printed weapons and parts is probably the best place to merge it. Archimedes157 (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We still have two target articles being proposed with equal support.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Military Proposed deletions

The following articles have been tagged for proposed deletion:

Current PRODs

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

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑