Knowledge

:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military - Knowledge

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 5,536
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: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: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'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

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

The article's sources are routine or otherwise not WP:SIGCOV. A search has turned up no sources that would qualify as significant or secondary in order to meet WP:GNG. Garsh (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Sebiba (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. M.Bitton (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep (with improvements) - appears potentially notable based on scale of the battle. Second source seems to be The Complete History which is a significant work. Probably needs some "according to" etc. given that we are inevitably dealing with historical accounts. Per WP:NONENG if any of the statements are controversial, some translated quotation of the original source(s) might be helpful. YFB ¿ 17:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete. Per nom. Can't find any mention of this in reliable (English) secondary sources, so it's certainly not a major or noteworthy engagement. Ibn al-Athir (The Complete History) and al-Idrisi (quoted in text) are primary sources, so even if there's no WP:OR involved here (which I'm not confident about), its mere mention in primary sources, in the absence of any mentions in secondary sources, means it doesn't meet WP:GNG. Overall, it just looks like another pseudo-puffery piece squeezed out of an obscure historical military engagement. R Prazeres (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
It's not easy to research this topic as most of the Arabic-language texts I can access e.g. via Google Books don't seem to support text selection (to check translation). However I found the following paper in the Algerian Historical Journal (for example) via a quick search for معركة سبيبة (Battle of Sebiba) https://www.asjp.cerist.dz/en/article/224926
I'm not sure how Ibn al-Athir can be considered a primary source in this context? He wasn't born until 95 years after this battle took place and he doesn't appear to have been directly connected to either of the combatant tribes. But IANA historian so perhaps I'm misunderstanding how this works. YFB ¿ 20:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
I found a French translation of Ibn al-Athir which is a bit more accessible to me at least. There is a whole section devoted to this battle, the context and its aftermath so it does seem fairly significant. Quick Google translation below of an extract:
"Then the Riyâh' and the Zenâta all set out together, and on his side En-Naçir having advanced at the head of the Çanhȧdja, the Zenâta and the Benoû Hilal, the two armies met near the town of Sebiba ( 1 ) . Following the charge which the Riyâh' and El-Moʻizz made respectively against the Benoû Hilal and the Zenâta, these last two groups fled, and the troops of En-Naçir imitated their example. The fugitives were pursued with swords at their backs, and twenty-four thousand Çanhâdja and Zenâta were massacred. El-K'ȧsim ben 'Alennâs (2) , brother of En-Nåçir, was also killed, but the latter himself was able to flee with a small number of his men. The Arabs thus became masters of a rich booty consisting of everything that belonged to the vanquished, money, weapons, horses, etc., the sharing of which was carried out as agreed. This affair completed the Arabs' complete mastery of the country; having arrived without resources, poor and having very few horses, they then found themselves rich, abundantly provided with weapons and mounts, in the presence of a country almost without defenders. They sent the standards, the drums, the tents of En-Nâçir and the horses they contained, to Temim, who sent them back to them, saying that it would be shameful for him to seize the spoils of his cousin. The Arabs greatly appreciated this act of generosity."
I also found the following in https://www.persee.fr/doc/ccmed_0007-9731_1968_num_11_43_1452
"La défaite de Sabîba (1065), qui fait au Magrib Central pendant à celle de Haydarân, constraint bientôt al-Nâsir d'abandonner la Qal'a pour Bougie, qu'il vient de fonder (1068-9). Vannée suivante, il conclut avec Tamïm une paix que lui et ses successeurs respecteront jusqu'à la mort de Tamïm (1108)."
This is another secondary source that ascribes significance to the event. Definitely enough for GNG in my view. The article needs a lot of work, I will see what I can do to bring it up to scratch if retained or moved to Draft space.
YFB ¿ 00:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Another source, in English, which devotes more than two whole pages to this specific battle: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BvTjCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA43 (pages 43-45) YFB ¿ 01:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for looking. That last source (Baadj 2015) is the only one that gives me pause about notability, but it's still just one book, which doesn't fully solve the WP:GNG problem because you'd have to write most of the article from this single detailed source. (As for Ibn al-Athir and Idrisi, as asilvering notes below they are primary sources in the sense that they are medieval accounts from the same era, so they should be mediated by professional historians.) A quick reading of Baadj's account also makes it clear that this article, as is, would need to be completely re-written to even be understandable. I'd support draftifying at best, if there's a chance a competent editor would rewrite it, but WP:TNT otherwise. R Prazeres (talk) 05:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
@Yummifruitbat well, he's a secondary source in the sense that he wasn't at the battle, but from the perspective of writing history, we don't want to be basing articles on what someone said several hundred years ago, with no interpretation by modern historians. -- asilvering (talk) 03:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Harold J. Dunlap (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)

Cant see why he is notable. Note tag has been removed several times. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NACADEMIC. scope_creep 09:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Northern Campaign of Raghunath Rao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is a clear case of WP:SYNTH. Google Books provide no results at all for "Northern Campaign of Raghunath Rao" or the original title "Northern Conquest of Raghunath Rao". The editor has arbitrarily linked various battles of his own choice into a single conflict, not supported by any RS. Also, note that the orginal creator has been banned for sockpuppetry, and multiple sockpuppets have often tried to restore the article after other editors redirected the page. PadFoot (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete; clearly lacks notability as a singular subject. Much of the content fails verification and tries to blow out of proportion the historical significance of the events involving the winning states, as is typical with these socks. Noting to @Crashed greek that PadFoot was merely restoring the "backdoor deletion" rightly done by Sitush in October 2023 but repeatedly undone without just reason by socks. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
User Sitush mentioned by you is not an administrator with speedy deletion privilege. Crashed greek (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
He does not have to be. "Backdoor deletion" (less pejoratively referred to as WP:BLARing) can be done by any user. The only reason to revert such "deletion" would be if you have an actual objection to the reasons for the article's blanking and redirecting. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
National liberation struggle of the Ingush people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a POVFORK and we already have a decent article at Ingush people. There may be some elements of this article that can be merged there, but I don’t think this article as a whole should be retained. Mccapra (talk) 06:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

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

This article has gotten a lot of attention from a series of Indian milhist sockpuppets that are particularly interested in embellishing histories of non-notable "battles" that are lost by Muslim forces. I find only two hits on google scholar at this title, and zero for its original title, "Battle of Anasagara". asilvering (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Maratha campaigns in Gujarat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article attempts to present very different and completely unrelated conflicts as a single conflict. The article is a clear case of WP:SYNTH. The sack of Surat in 1664 which the article presents as the beginning of the conflict was carried out by Shivaji prior to his coronation. This conflict is then connected by the article to the raids by the Dhabade Maratha clan which has no connection to Shivaji's raid. This is then listed with the Peshwa-Gaekwad conquest of the region which again has nothing to do with the beforementioned conflicts. No WP:RS has been provided that treats these separate conflicts as a singular one. PadFoot (talk) 11:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Article sounds more like a book than a Knowledge article. Henry (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

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

The article lacks WP:NOTABILITY, with only a single source provided which only briefly mentions the term. There seems to be no significant usage of this term in the scholarly community at all, with close to no scholars using this term. PadFoot (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Unsure. The first citation is cited incorrectly, never a good sign in an article. It doesn’t link to the first paragraph at all. Google Scholar throws up three publications using the phrase, and they’re all 2023 and 2024… so maybe it’s becoming more popular recently, but it doesn’t seem to be there yet. I’d love to know if there are Indian language sources using the equivalent phrase, which is translated here into English? But I don’t have the language skills to find out. So, on the one hand, the article as written doesn’t establish notability, but there seems to be sources out there which might… means I can’t decide between weak keep and weak delete, but tend towards weak delete unless someone steps in and finds some sources so we can be sure it’s not something the creator came up with himself through synth. Absurdum4242 (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep (or maybe merge) Notability for the term "Maratha Resurrection" is not an issue, as multiple articles discuss it in the context of Peshwa Madhav Rao, such as this . If the historical facts are accurate, the term does not need specialized historical articles to validate its significance. A phenomenon's name can stand on its own merit, regardless of extensive historical analysis. Therefore, if the information presented is correct, I oppose deleting the article. Notability is notability; it is not solely defined by "specialized scholars." Scholars provide historical analysis, while any historical event can be labeled differently over time without distorting history, as long as the facts remain intact. If the historical facts here are wrong, then delete it. Otherwise-keep. Thanks.
DangalOh (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
@DangalOh, I think get what you mean to say here. The various battles mentioned in the article are notable, but the "Maratha resurrection" as a single event enveloping all these conflicts into a single one is not supported by many reliable sources. Such a term lacks notability and widespread usage in the scholarly community (see WP:HISTRS). A merger into another suitable article would be alright though. PadFoot (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
I understand it. If the series of events are absolutely unrelated and are being portrayed more like a synthesis, then it's a no. But if those events are related or depict a phenomenon that might not have been specifically termed as something like 'Maratha resurrection' by most of the WP:HISTRS, it might still merit inclusion. As logic suggests, WP:HISTRS is meant to establish or verify history. A term for a series of events (unless the events are entirely unrelated and someone is trying to make them seem connected) can be developed at any point in time. And yes, I do believe a standalone article is a bit too much. But I trust you—you will find a way to not completely remove this and find a good article (maybe the main one) to merge it into without compromising its integrity. The term might gain more traction in the future; maybe then people can discuss a standalone article. Thanks. DangalOh (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom, I don't think there's enough scholarly sources that properly refer to a "Maratha resurrection". The scholar search up bit wasn't really much per Padfoot's explanation. Noorullah (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Appears to have been canvassed here. Noorullah21 Notice. Lightburst (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep I have added some sources. It is a significant evening. Other Indian kingdoms had thought Maratha empire was weakened a lot after the loss of Battle of Panipat on 1761, but Marathas regained territory up to Delhi in 1771 and Najibababad 1772 battle. That is very much notable. And also the exact term Maratha Resurrection was used in multiple sources. Though Marathas could not occupy up to Peshawar like before the Panipat battle, this was a significant territory away from their capital Poona. Crashed greek (talk) 08:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
    The added source (snippet) only includes a brief mention of the term, without providing any explanations of the term. I'm not sure whether you understand WP:NOTABILITY. A simple scholar search will show that there are close to zero sources that use term "Maratha resurrection", clearly depicting that the term lacks notability in the scholarly community. PadFoot (talk) 13:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge There doesn't seem to be enough context or content for a standalone article, but it seems this could easily be merged into Maratha Empire as a sub-heading in the History section. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: Unless I am missing something these individual talk page notices from the nominator (@PadFoot2008:) look like WP:CANVASSING. Both AirshipJungleman29 and Flemmish_Nietzsche previously !voted delete on one of the nominator's other AfD nominations and Noorullah just looks like someone the nominator knows.
  1. AirshipJungleman29 Notice
  2. Flemmish_Nietzsche Notice
  3. Noorullah21 Notice
Lightburst (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
@Lightburst, sorry, I am new to AfDs, (this one is my first one). I wouldn't notify anyone else. So I can't notify people who often contribute to this field? PadFoot (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
@PadFoot2008: Always best to allow editors to find these through the projects- this AfD was posted in several. If you reach out to individuals it always has the appearance of bringing a like-minded editor to change consensus. I am sure others can explain better than I can. Also read the link WP:CANVASSING as it is nuanced. Lightburst (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
@Lightburst, Alright, thank you. PadFoot (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Per DangalOh's admission, But if those events are related or depict a phenomenon that might not have been specifically termed as something like 'Maratha resurrection' by most of the WP:HISTRS, it might still merit inclusion... The term might gain more traction in the future; maybe then people can discuss a standalone article. As and when scholars will start using this term, we will swiftly create this article. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Mašićka Šagovina killings (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 entire article is based on claims of Savo Štrbac ('Veritas') published in the Serbian newspaper Politika. Neither of these are particular pillars of objectivity, which is documented already.

It seems plausible that something like what is described in the article happened, and it also seems plausible that a few people lied or embellished the truth to a few favorably inclined reporters and got them to publish something that sells well in their target market.

The only other citations are to Večernji list, which may well be slanted in the other direction. There's one link to a 1992 article in The Baltimore Sun which I can't access.

So there doesn't seem to be coherent independent confirmation for this narrative from conventionally reliable sources - I couldn't find it in the archive of the Serb National Council which documents a lot of these kinds of killings. I searched the ICTY website, and this place was only mentioned in seemingly unrelated witness transcripts. Balkan Insight has a couple of stories about exhumations in 2013 and 2016 in the area, but makes no claims of massacres. I also checked the Documenta – Center for Dealing with the Past website, and other Croatian websites, and there's just basically nothing, other than war stories from veterans. Usually there should be at least something, even if the information was being suppressed by interested parties.

We shouldn't be parroting such serious claims until there's at least some verification. It doesn't actually do justice to the memory of any people unlawfully killed there to post arbitrary unverifiable stuff about it.

Can anyone else find anything, or do we delete this? --Joy (talk) 10:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment the Baltimore Sun link works just fine. It mentions a massacre in this village at the same time with most of the same details. So probably was a thing that happened. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Would be great if you could paste some of the exact phrasing used. Dusko Doder's biography says he was in Belgrade in the 1990s, and let's just say that July 1992 in Belgrade was not a great time and place to get information about what's happening with Serbs in Croatia in December 1991. --Joy (talk) 12:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
I was able to access the Baltimore Sun article. Doder and Louise Branson are both accomplished Western-based journalists and authors, so the credibility as far as reporting should be sufficient. The beginning of the article describes the Ahatovići massacre of Bosniaks, and other reported atrocities. The passage regarding this topic is as follows:

One massacre of the Croatian war was reported by a Serb woman, Nevenka Despotovic from the village of Marsicka Sagovina near Nova Gradiska. Her foot was blown away by a hand-grenade thrown into the basement by Croat forces surrounding a home in which she and several others were hiding in a basement. Everyone else in the basement was machine-gunned to death as she watched. Those who surrendered, including her brother, were taken away and killed.

There's no doubt that Štrbac is a biased source but at the same time, I don't believe he or Veritas are in the business of engaging in hoaxes, but good-faith attempts to seek justice for civilians affected by war crimes. Serbian sources might be biased so I agree their reporting should be carefully examined but imo, it's not any more biased than Croatian sources who might be inclined to suppress/ignore war crimes from their side. The information is based on first-hand eye witnesses, with their full names, and the Veritas and Politika reporting corroborate the Baltimore Sun report. Croatian sources speak of "major losses" from the Serbian side during the "action in Masicka Sagovina" and it is entirely plausible civilians were victims of crimes. Although, I agree it is strange that there isn't any more information about this beyond these sources. I also haven't been able to find any other sources discussing this. Having said that, I also disagree with the argument that because something isn't widely covered, it means it didn't happen. A lot of war crimes go unreported or aren't publicized as much and remain unresolved. --Griboski (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Exactly, it's plausible, but it doesn't make sense that none of this ever reached even a humanitarian organization beyond Veritas. I find it weird that the 2019 article from Veritas says:
Tom prilikom su, prema srpskim izvorima, likvidirali najmanje 55 ljudi, među kojima 31 civila i pripadnika TO iz ovog sela.
So this person is referencing "sources" - not necessarily saying someone specifically told them that, it could have just been that they read about it.
... grupa od dvdesetak civila sklonila se u podrum Rajka Stojičevića, među kojima su bile i meštanke 29-godišnja Mara Mioković i 14-godišnja Milica Vrljanović, koje su preživele ovaj masakr i po izlasku iz zarobljeništva, pred saradnicima Srpskog sabora, još u toku ratnih godina, ostavili pisana svedočanstva o zločinu u Mašićkoj Šagovini.
Who are these "associates of Srpski sabor"? What is this organization? This is likewise said to be a written testimony from the war years.
Na drugom kraju sela, po svedočenju meštanina Jovice Milosavljevića (25), datom po izlasku iz zarobljeništva u maju 1992. u Crvenom krstu u Beogradu, ...
So that person said that in May 1992 in a Red Cross in Belgrade after being released from captivity. This was some sort of a prisoner exchange? How would this story be more reliable than any other story told by a veteran?
Anyway, if nobody in the last thirty years went through the effort of verifying these claims, even including Veritas who appear to just be collating '90s era sources, Knowledge is just not the place to make our readers do that. --Joy (talk) 07:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
BTW in 2022, an anonymous user noted this in the military operation article - . That kind of a sentence is about the amount of coverage we can realistically have on this unless a better source comes up. --Joy (talk) 08:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep The Baltimore Sun link is online and working and Politika is RS in most cases. Keep and close. — Sadko (words are wind) 11:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
This is just the level of useless contribution that had caused your earlier topic ban in Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive283#Sadko. --Joy (talk) 12:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete Crimes like this are widely covered, not only by media reports when they occur but also by humanitarian organizations, war crime tribunals, books, etc long after the fact. In contrast, this event is largely absent, except for a few sources during the conflict or from those denying it 20 years later. There is insufficient RS to confirm that it even happened. Durraz0 (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete Thank you Griboski for the cited passage. It would appear that the two articles cite the same person who's contradicting herself (some people killed by grenades thrown in and some survivors vs eveyone taken away and machine gunned) therefore not the most reliable source. At best, she is indicating that an undetermined number of people were killed there that day. Beyond her report, there's nothing on the killings in sources outside Veritas (at least as of today). I agree with the above observation that it seems very implausible that there's so little published on killing of 55 civilians/pows in a village in a day, especially considering ICTY investigations of such killings in the area. Maybe it is just that no reliable sources made significant coverage of an actual event, but then it fails WP:GNG.Tomobe03 (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
April 2024 Chernihiv missile strike (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 was up for AfD a few months ago, and since then, there have been so many other attacks like this one. I don't see notability, based on the lack of any sort of continued coverage, that would make this attack stand out from the other hundreds of such attacks at this point. NOTNEWS? Discuss below so it can be settled. Oaktree b (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

•Delete sadly, although tragic, its just another missile strike from the Russia-Ukraine wars spillovers and affects on civillians in russia and ukraine alike, it has no standing notabillity. @Oaktree b Lolzer3k 17:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Hamas most wanted playing cards (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)

It's been six months since this was last discussed and I don't find any new sourcing, beyond what was discussed at the last AfD. This appears to have been a SYNTH from various bits of news coverage... While you can find mentions of a "hit list" of sorts that the Israeli army has, it doesn't appear to be a playing card deck be coverage of a playing card deck. I've not seen coverage of this concept this past year, so nothing has changed, notability-wise. Oaktree b (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

There was also negative recent attention around an error in the card deck. Article from May 2024 in Yediot Ahronot. 04:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Oaktree b, Why is that CRYSTALBALL? VR says that we should consider lasting effect in the future. That's policy, not crystal ball! Importance of a subject is always relevant. gidonb (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Lasting effects in the future means we don't know how important it is now. We aren't here to predict the future ]. We need reliable sources that discuss these cards in detail, which we don't seem to have. Oaktree b (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
When these cards came out in 2023, these received a lot of media attention, satisfying the GNG. In 2024, which isn't nearly over, the deck received again much attention. VR says that we would need to check this also in the future. That has nothing to do with crystal balling. It's just how WP rolls. gidonb (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
not really sure what VR has to do with the sources, what do you think about them Oaktree b (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I have shared my opinion elsewhere. gidonb (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Jens Hammer (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 "author" (blogger). Feels self-promotional. Lacks WP:RS, fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR. Cabrils (talk) 02:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete promotional article of a non-notable figure Traumnovelle (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Robert Cawthome (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 propose this page for deletion because no Australian soldier named General Robert "Bill" Cawthome, seconded to Pakistan, ever existed. Several media outlets mistakenly refer to this nonexistent individual as the co-founder of the Inter-Services Intelligence, instead of Major General Sir Walter Joseph "Bill" Cawthorn, an Australian who served as the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Pakistan Army. While newint.org correctly identifies Cawthorn in this role, it incorrectly refers to him as "R. Cawthorne." Additionally, Dr. Hein G. Kiessling, who has extensive connections within Pakistan's political, military, and intelligence circles, authored Faith, Unity, Discipline: The ISI of Pakistan in 2016, which highlights Walter as the co-founder of the Inter-Services Intelligence. The Civil and Military Gazette of Lahore also supports this, confirming Walter's appointment as Deputy Chief of Staff. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I found another article originally by Peter Hohnen on Sir Walter Joseph Cawthorn (1896–1970), published in the Australian Dictionary of Biography, Volume 13, 1993. This further reinforces my argument that Robert "Bill" Cawthome never existed and is actually being confused with Walter Joseph "Bill" Cawthorn. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep: The same source by Hein Kiessling that the nom is ruining with their disruptive editing in this edit states: Established in the wake of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947-48 by British officer Major General Robert Cawthorne, the then deputy chief of staff in the Pakistan Army. In addition, the book by S. K. Dutta states here: Generals of Pakistan and the ISI chiefs, retired and serving, have great admiration for the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). One of them described the ISI as the 'most dreaded organization of South Asia'. For Pakistanis, South Asia means India. This sadism dominates the character of this infamous institution, which was created by an Australian-born British Major General Robert Cawthome of the Pakistan Army in 1948. This was the parting gift of the British forces to the Pakistanis. He was so favoured by the Pakistani generals that he was subsequently posted as Australian High Commissioner to Pakistan, where he developed unique close relationships with Iskander Mirza and Gen. Ayub, who were responsible for the derailment of democracy in Pakistan from the very beginning of its creation. Additionally, Amit Bagaria states in his book here: ISI was structured to be operated by officers from the three main military services, and to specialize in the collection, analysis, and assessment of foreign military and non-military intelligence. It was the brainchild of former British Indian Army Major General, Sir Robert Cawthome, then Deputy Chief of Staff of the Pakistan Army, who selected Colonel Shahid Hamid to set up the agency. Truly a very premature nomination created on a whim. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
    Where does Hein Kiessling ever mention a Robert Cawthorne? There is literally NO reference to a Robert Cawthorne anywhere in the book. You're blatantly ignoring all the evidence right in front of you and cherry-picking random sources to support your weak argument. Tell me, would an Indian author really have more insight into Pakistan's agency than Dr. Kiessling, a PhD who literally wrote an entire book on the subject and is renowned for his connections with the Pakistani military? WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
    Read pages 14–20 of the book by Hein Kiessling. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
    I have read the book which is why I'm proposing the page for speedy deletion, page 14 literally says "Major General Walter Joseph Cawthorne"... WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
    Check the publisher's note. Additionally, are you suggesting that we should dismiss all these sources by Indian authors solely because they are Indian? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
    No that's not what I'm saying, don't speak for me or put words in my mouth. I think you're trolling because there is no way you're reading Walter Joseph Cawthorne as Robert Cawthorne.. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
    Former CIA official Bruce Riedel mentions Walter Joseph Cawthorne, Adjunct Professor Owen L. Sirrs of the University of Montana similarly mentions Walter here, and General Syed Shahid Hamid, Cawthorn's successor, literally mentions him HERE. It's okay to be wrong once in a while, not a big deal. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
    Deputy Chief of Staff Walter Cawthorn, who also held the additional role of Secretary for the Joint Service Commanders' Committee, appointed Brigadier Mirza Hamid Hussain as the successor to Syed Shahid Hamid as the head of the agency on 23 August 1950. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 10:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Pakistan, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete clearly confusion over name has led to creation of this duplicative page when we have a page for Walter Cawthorn. Mztourist (talk) 04:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Earlier today I considered deleting this as WP:G3, blatant hoax – until I looked at the page history, that is. There are two confusions at work here, one between Walter and Robert, and the other between Cawthorn and Cawthorne as Walter's surname and between Cawthorne (...ORNE} and Cawthome (...OME) as Robert's surname. Of the three books cited by SheriffIsInTown, the first discusses "Walter Cawthorne" but has no mention of Robert; the other two discuss "Robert Cawthome". There's no doubt that Walter Cawthorn is the person who set up the ISI, even if the Australian Dictionary of Biography neglects to mention that (Cambridge, Taylor & Francis). However, Scholar searches yield:
Given this level of confusion, there should be redirects from the other three name variants to the correct one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:23, 29 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 artifice. Tagged for notability last month but no evidence of any discussion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 16:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 16:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not seen sufficient proof that there was a distinct battle at Tel al-Hawa. Warfare for sure. The concern with this article is practical, not theoretical. I'm very open to legitimate SPINOFFs for battles. gidonb (talk) 06:42, 29 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 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 16:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I remain confused at how the three last-minute delete votes on the day this was set to close can claim a lack of “modern sources” when the Indian Foreign Policy book, for example, was first written in 2007, with the 7th edition being linked to being published in 2018. Add in the cut and paste nature of the original nomination and… as much as I hate to suggest everyone isn’t arguing in good faith, this feels like brigading?
Also…. I don’t think that’s how WP:NOTNEWS works? Given that this happened almost 50 years ago? Absurdum4242 (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
@Absurdum4242: Notwithstanding how other participants have phrased it, WP:LASTING refers to lasting effects, not lasting coverage. The single 75-word paragraph in the book is lasting coverage, and distinguishes this event from some discussed at AfD recently which have none, but that paragraph's conclusion is telling: "forces of the two countries clashed but the tension soon cooled down." Nothing significant happened. No one was killed, injured, or taken prisoner; no territory, booty, or reparations changed hands; no new method of determining the border was adopted; no treaty was signed. The event was not a precedent or catalyst for anything. There were no lasting effects. The paragraph in the book suggests that the event may be worth a paragraph in an article more broadly focused on Bangladesh-India border relations. It is not suitable for a stand alone article. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Ah, so the correct WP would be WP:Continuedcoverge instead, where “ The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance.”? Absurdum4242 (talk) 04:39, 30 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:10, 25 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: AFDs pertaining to conflicts involving Sikhs have been targeted in the past by socks. I will focus only on content/sourcing issues in the AFD, but will seek outside resolution if there are indicators of sockpuppetry/block evasion. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please keep comments reserved to discussing the article, its sources and notablity and not about other editors who may or may not be socks. Not every editor who disagrees with you is a sock or is trying to sabotage a discussion. Please refocus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 07:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I substantially trimmed the addendum, and will only focus on content/sourcing issues in the discussion. Thanks. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 18:41, 26 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 02:52, 25 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Got coverage for quite a while after the initial incident; a bit on the BIO1E side but the article in its current state is pretty decent, and the event is well, quite significant. As a more specific aspect it doesn't really duplicate much from the event article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep The references in the article show it passes WP:GNG. If WP:BIO1E applies, a significant portion of this article should be moved retained in a new article titled something like "Incorrect reports of the death of Melvin Storer" per WP:GNG. McYeee (talk) 23:18, 26 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is pretty extensive so I'd prefer a bit more confirmation that deletion is the right call here over any possible WP:ATD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:50, 23 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.

↑