Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
(Redirected from Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military and combat)
Shortcuts
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 1542
Featured lists 150
Featured topics 41
Featured pictures 673
Featured sounds 69
Featured portals 5
A-Class articles 686
A-Class lists 40
Good articles 5,702
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 {{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:
Purge page cache watch

Military and combat

edit

EML Vapper

edit
EML Vapper (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 was looking for sources and just found some random ship listing databases and fan pages, none of which have any significant depth or coverage. Jesus isGreat7 ☾⋆ | Ping Me 15:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Hussainiwala

edit
Battle of Hussainiwala (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)

An article about a battle at an Indian village in 1971, that is lacking any WP:SIGCOV in third-party, reliable, secondary sources, despite there being a plethora books focusing on the parent Indo-Pakistani war of 1971. The article currently only cites the scarce works of the Pakistani junior commanders, who fought the battle at the time and wrote memoirs and articles in the Pakistani fora about it, and these are neither reliable nor suffice for establishing the noteworthiness of the subject for a standalone existence here. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The battle resulted in the awarding of several gallantry distinctions on both sides. From Pakistan, personnel received 5 Sitara-e-Jurat (the third-highest gallantry award), 6 Tamgha-e-Jurat (the fourth-highest gallantry award), and one Imtiazi Sanad (Mentioned in Dispatches). From India, awards included 8 Maha Vir Chakra (the second-highest gallantry award) and 18 Vir Chakra (the third-highest gallantry award).
This engagement holds considerable importance, equivalent to Battle of Shiromoni, Battle of point 5140, Battle of Point 4875, and others.
It is important to note that battles are typically fought and led at the level of junior officers; one would not expect a flag officer like three-star generals or brigadiers to personally lead them. (However, the battle was directly fought by a Brigadier, and a Maj Gen was directly involved in the battle). The examples cited below also demonstrate this pattern :
  1. Battle of point 5140 — Lt. Col. Yogesh Kumar Joshi
  2. Battle of Point 4875 — Lt. Col. Yogesh Kumar Joshi & Capt. Vikram Batra
  3. Battle of Shiromoni — Maj. Abul Manzur
  4. Battle of Boyra — Flt. Lt. Roy & Wg. Cdr. Afzal
  5. Battle of Kushtia — Maj. Shoeb
𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 19:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the battle has been in the national news of the countries which engaged in the warfare. For example - [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] and so on. The battle has been mentioned in detail in the sources mentioned above
The battle has been mentioned in numerous books as well, such as
  1. India's war since independence : Defence of the Western Front by Maj. Gen. Sukhwant Singh
  2. Against all Odds : The Pakistan Air Force in the 1971 Indo-Pakistan War by Kaiser Tufail
  3. An Atlas of the 1971 Indo-Pakistan War : The Creation of Bangladesh by John. H Gill
  4. Pakistan's Crisis in Leadership by Fazal Muqeen
The present condition of the article might be poor, but I assure I will improve the condition by adding additional citations.

𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 19:20, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tumblr is user generated. Bol news article is written by Pakistani military officials. Tribune is an opinion piece. Dawn article is about a review of a book written by a Pakistani military officer. These sources are not reliable for this battle. Shankargb (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The references of the four books mentioned above contains documented history, those can be used as reliable sources.
I'm currently reading the books, I'll add the citations today or tomorrow with cross checking the information with several sources.
Also, for your kind information, books written by army personnel are often considered as a good source, only if the information matches with another source — for this case it would. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 03:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plenty notable, starting with a 306 page book:
    • Ahmed, Habib (2015). The battle of Hussainiwala and Qaiser-i-Hind: the 1971 war (1. ed.). Karachi: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1990-6472-4. Retrieved August 28, 2025.
There's also a book by Tariq Rahman that mentions the battle:
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:07, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John W. Garrett Jr.

edit
John W. Garrett Jr. (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; subject's only claim to notability is being a victim of the 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident and bio article is substantively nothing more than an obituary/memorial providing no additional relevant detail beyond the (already FA-status) main article for the event. Wikipedia is not a memorial or an obituary and this person is not even sufficiently notable for one event -- by comparison, no other victim of the shootdown has an article either.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 05:16, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Merge with "1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident", as that's what most of this article consists of. There's a list of victims there, but it could be expanded into a section with a brief description of each; that's all that there is about the subject of this article here. That still might be trimmed, but some details such as home town or background kept—provided similar details are available for at least some of the other victims. If that's not going to happen, then simply delete. P Aculeius (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: One of 26 victims, is not notable. Rather routine military career, based on the limited info available. Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Józef Kasparek

edit
Józef Kasparek (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)

Primary contributor/creator (with Logologist being an older account of Nihil novi) has self-identified on Wikipedia as someone who is related to the subject of this article (see this diff, book can be found on Internet Archive where the name can be confirmed).

Undisclosed COI aside, sourcing is really poor throughout. The parts of the article that contain references are mostly sourced from the subject’s own works (including memoirs which are not published anywhere, as far as I can ascertain) and a “Who’s Who” book which I would think best to extend caution on given the integrity of these genres of book as raised by MediaKyle at the AfD for Kasparek’s relative.

I’ve also had to remove material from the article which was cited to another source because it failed verification – it most likely employed some degree of original research. I imagine much of the other unsourced material is also OR.

I can find a couple of instances where Kasparek’s work has been cited in the occasional journal article and a single question/statement to the editors of the NY Book Review hosted on their website but no significant and reliable coverage regarding him. ToeSchmoker (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not WikiTree, and we do not host vanity articles for family members of editors. I agree with ToeSchmoker's assessment - like the other Kasparek, there is practically nothing here with the exception of Who's Who in Polish America, which is more than likely not GNG-worthy, and certainly cannot be the entire basis of an article. The remaining sources are Kasparek's own books and translations, without any actual coverage - not even a newspaper clipping to speak of. MediaKyle (talk) 11:35, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Kars (1744)

edit
Siege of Kars (1744) (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:RS Iranian112 (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mandsaur

edit
Battle of Mandsaur (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)

Neither G. S. Sardesai (1946) nor Sarkar, Jadunath (1920) are usable sources for establishing notability for having an article. Both are far too old and outdated, there is also no significant coverage about this battle in sources. Wareon (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Rajasthan (1965)

edit
Battle of Rajasthan (1965) (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 mainly citing pro-Pakistani sources, and is offering nothing new that hasn't been already covered in Indo-Pakistani war of 1965#Rajasthan Front.

... Raymond3023 (talk) 05:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I hope you have read the Rajasthan Front in 1965 article, this article offers lot more then that. And about pro-Pakistani sources, the article's source number 1, 2, 3, 7 are neither Indian nor Pakistani sources, number 4 is Indian sources and rest are pakistani sources. The sources have been rechecked, and they state almost the same thing. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 05:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added two more Indian sources to make it neutral, as it is "mainly" citing pro-Pakistani sources. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 06:12, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have to describe how any of those sources make this battle notable. #7 (John Fricker) is not a reliable source here because Fricker was working for the Pakistan Air Force as a military advisor. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 06:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from John Fricker, the article has Indian sources which claims the Indian losses and involvement, and those have been added. I hope this answers your question on neutrality, as India itself claimed it's losses. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 06:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are talking about these edits of yours. Dailyio is an unreliable source, and it makes only a passing mention of this conflict. Same case with HonourPoint. Read WP:GNG and describe where you find significant coverage for this battle. THEZDRX (User) | (Contact) 07:06, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The casualties are mentioned not only in Indian sourced but also in Pakistan sources. I have added indian references to maintain neutrality. The parent article only consists a few lines about the skirmishes, but this article offers a broader version of the warfare. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 07:52, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added official indian history references, like Bharat Rakhshak, which is in no way fabricated. And there are other articles which don't have long time impact and poorly sourced, but they have existed from a long time. On the other hand, this article is sourced well. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 08:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bharat Rakshak (also not reliable) is only providing the information that already exists on 11th Infantry Division (India). So what is the point of having this article? THEZDRX (User) | (Contact) 09:20, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever heard about Bharat Rakhshak? Or you are learning about it for the first time? Bharat Rakhshak is a reliable source, being established in 1997 as a pioneer of the Indian military portal. The information they provide are usually collected from different authors and Indian government documents.
About the 11th Infantry Division, the context of the war is broader then the involvement of the division in the warfare. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 09:41, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bharat Rakshak is reliable only for stating Indian claims, not for establishing GNG for this battle. THEZDRX (User) | (Contact) 10:55, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Laura M. Dickey

edit
Laura M. Dickey (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 notability demonstrated. Most sources are primary sources. JohnMizuki (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Interesting: until this year, government websites were given the "presumption of regularity". Is that no longer true? Bearian (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely made a mistake when opening this discussion. My reasoning was that holding public office is not enough to prove notability, but the person has received awards and commendations. Not sure if I can close the discussion or an admin has to do it. JohnMizuki (talk) 12:30, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can by following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Procedure for non-administrator close (nominator withdrawal), although if you ask an admin they can probably help you. Ike Lek (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Diyarbakır (1511)

edit
Battle of Diyarbakır (1511) (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:RS Iranian112 (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Support per nom. I would like to note that the sources that are cited in the article fail WP:V. R3YBOl (🌲) 22:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accoutrements

edit
Accoutrements (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)

Entirely unsourced since creation (from a Wiktionary redirect) in 2013. Reads like original research and a collection of random musings. Limited to things normally carried by soldiers, police officers etc., ignoring that there are also civilian accoutrements. Sandstein 20:47, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Eagle (military slang)

edit
Iron Eagle (military slang) (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)

Its been unsourced for years, if ther are no sources it is OR. Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Circassian invasion of Abkhazia

edit
Circassian invasion of Abkhazia (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 am nominating this page for deletion due to misinformation, biased writing, and sources that do not support the information presented in the article.

Firstly, the legendary person named Inal most likely existed, but this is generally accepted only through oral tradition and not recorded in written sources. Therefore, events attributed to him should not be considered historical facts.

The main account about Inal comes from the Kabardian folklorist Shora Nogmov. According to the legends collected by Nogmov, Inal united the Circassians under one rule, and then the princes in Abkhazia, called 'Asha' and 'Shasha' (Anchabadze and Sharvashidze), became his allies. There is no historical event involving a war with the Megrelians.

The person "Özdemir" added to the infobox is mentioned only in Nogmov’s account. He is described as someone who rebelled against Inal and was killed during a battle. That is the only information about him. Nogmov also writes that Inal died while he was negotiating peace with Abkhazian lords, which is why his grave is said to be there.

Information about Inal is not recorded in external sources, so Georgian sources do not mention him at all. Therefore, phrases like "According to historical records..." are incorrect.

Many of the claims in the article, including numbers of soldiers in battles, are said to come from Amjad Jaimoukha's The Circassians: A Handbook, but these informations are not in the book. The sources cited do not support the information, which might seem as intentional.

The source The Legendary Circassian Prince Inal by Vitaliy Shtybin does not contain any of the claims presented in the article. For example, statements like "Some sources suggest that the Georgian commanders suffered heavy casualties" are not found, and it does not even mention Inal fighting Georgians. The existence of Smith, John’s The History of the Caucasus is not verifiable online. Even if it exists, sources about Inal is obvious. These sources mainly consist of 19th-century folklorists and researchers recording legends about Inal among the Circassians.

The website PRENSLERİN PRENSİ İNAL NEKHU (PŞILERİN PŞISI İNAL NEKHU) claims that Inal fought the Megrelians in 1433-1434. This information is very unclear and unreliable, because there is no source provided to confirm it. Since the information about Inal comes from oral sources, giving any specific dates without evidence is unscholarly. The date mentioned in this unreliable source also does not match the timeline given in the article. This may be because the source interpreted the events in a way that conflicts with the historical context of Imereti and Guria in the second half of the 15th century.

The source Абхазия : история без фальсификации quotes Nogmov, but it does not confirm any events mentioned in the article.

The sentence "...some details remain debated among historians" is misleading because no historian debates such an event.

It seems that the person who wrote the article copied the sources from Inal the Great page without checking the sources. The entire page was written this way, and I believe it spreads misinformation on Wikipedia. Therefore, I request that this article be clearly reviewed.

Also, the user who wrote the article removed the Unreliable sources template in the revision made at 11:01, 4 May 2025. Liptink0 (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Salher

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

There is no significant coverage for this battle in the sources. The first source "Gupta, Pratik (2014)" is self published by an "amateur history enthusiast". [8], the second source is from a non-historian who is also a prolific hindutva writer. The third source written by M. S. Naravane who was a retired wing commander is also not usable here. Kincaid, Dennis, Sardesai, Govind Sakharam (1946), Srivastava, Ashirbadi Lal (1964) are also far too old or self published sources written by non-scholars, and checking them i found not more than few lines of coverage, this article appears to have been created using compiling any source mentioning the term "salher". The ones that are reliable sources such as Tony Jacques and J.Mehta do not provide more than a paragraph worth of coverage. In short, this conflict was a minor battle and not notable for a standalone article. Rzvas (talk) 07:47, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Merta

edit
Battle of Merta (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)

None of the cited sources provide any significant coverage to this battle. This article relies on unreliable sources such as the N. G Rathod (1994) published by Sarup & Sons which is well known for plagiarising Raj era documents. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 05:21, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Assyrian-Kurdish clashes (1900–1910)

edit
Assyrian-Kurdish clashes (1900–1910) (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:RS Iranian112 (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ambush in Assa Gorge

edit
Ambush in Assa Gorge (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)

Does not meet GNG as no information when searched on google and relies on a single source which is a primary source Uncle Bash007 (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It has one source it is true, but that source is most definitely not a primary source. It's from a history book in Russian published by a reliable publisher more than 60 years after the event whose title when translated to English is Classic and Anti-colonial Struggle of the Chechen-Ingush Christians in the 19th–20th Centuries. In looking Gritsenko has a decent publishing record so I would say this a reliable secondary source from a respected Russian academic. No opinion as to notability as this is a topic most likely only covered in foreign language sources. Finding materials would likely require an editor intimate with Russian or Chechen language historical publications and resources. That isn't me. Given the nominator's poor judgment on sourcing I am inclined to keep this.4meter4 (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Persian revolts against Ali (656-661)

edit
Persian revolts against Ali (656-661) (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:NOR and WP:GNG and possibly AI generated Iranian112 (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Support per nom. R3YBOl (🌲) 19:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Expand The revolts were an important part of early islamic history as well as of Iran. The article be expanded which will include the revolts which broke out after the collapse of the Sasanian Empire during the reign of Caliph Uthman and hence includes all the revolts against the Rashidun Caliphate. The title be changed as " Persian Revolts against the Rashidun Caliphate " however the article name can be negotiated later onwards.
    Legion of Liberty (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The expanding that you're working on is still not useful. you should at least try adding page numbers to the sources so it won't fail WP:V. R3YBOl (🌲) 07:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have fixed much of the important citations with page numbers and added additional sources during the process which now verifies the events with reliable sources like al tabari and also multiple other references as well as secondary references. Further work is in progress. Let me know your consensus after the changes made Legion of Liberty (talk) 11:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    al-tabari isn't a reliable source because he's a primary source. avoid adding primary sources, and remove al–tabari from the sources because Wikipedia doesn't tolerate primary sources. R3YBOl (🌲) 11:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your concern about al - tabari being a primary source , however i have added several secondary and modern academic references such as (Touraj Daryaee, Mary Boyce, Elton Daniel, etc.) which verifies the historical context and reliability of Al-Tabari as well as the sources are not solely arab but also some persian affiliated as well as Independent sources and meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Al tabari is a primary source but not sole one but in conjunction with reliable secondary analysis. I believe the page needs improvement rather than deletion and I'll willing contribute with a unbiased perspective. Legion of Liberty (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was dismissed without prejudice‎. Neither the nomination nor any of the Delete or Merge votes carry any P&G weight. Not to mention the obvious canvassing or possible sockery. Owen× ☎ 23:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commander-in-Chief of the Pakistan Army

edit
Commander-in-Chief of the Pakistan Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The given references do not say anything on behalf of the claimed speeches. The 'History' and 'Chief of Staff of the Army' sections are not trustworthy. Where is strong proof that the appointment 'Chief of Staff of the Army' was the deputy to the C-in-C of the army? It is written here that General Yahya Khan was appointed as 'Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Army' before being appointed as the C-in-C of the army. This flickr photo does not say that the 'Chief of Staff' appointment was the deputy to the C-in-C of the army. PauKau (talk) 08:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Farhang Khosropanah

edit
Farhang Khosropanah (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)

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Not helping matters is that while the International Shooting Sport Federation lists the name as Farhang Khosropanah, Olympedia has the name listed as Farhang Khosro Panah. In any event, I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV under either name whether through Google, the Internet Archive, or the MENA database. A redirect to Iran at the 1948 Summer Olympics may be a suitable WP:ATD, although the name conflict may cause issues with that. Let'srun (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To make matters even more confusing, in addition to the Persian name listed on his page, I am also seeing "سوان فرهنگ خسروپناه" if someone with more Farsi knowledge wants to look. Ike Lek (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
فرهنگ خسروپناه is his name, سوان is the literal transliteration to "swan" but is not a word in Farsi. I don't know where "سوان" is but remove it. jolielover♥talk 05:34, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't on Wikipedia. It is in articles on the Persian internet, leading me to think it might be just part of a weird name. Ike Lek (talk) 05:36, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Asked my Persian friend to verify and she said it's not a word. jolielover♥talk 06:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of historical ships of the Brazilian Navy

edit
List of historical ships of the Brazilian Navy (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)

Draftification because of no sourcing reverted without explanation; currently minimal sourcing verifies only a tiny part of the list. Suggest re-draftifying until the list adequately meets the core content policy WP:V. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One of the two Keeps bring up no P&G-based arguments, but we don't yet have quorum to move the page out of mainspace.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Orleans Squadron

edit
AfDs for this article:
New Orleans Squadron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. Not supported by independent sources. Lacks notability.Keith H99 (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. The existence of an entity known as the "New Orleans Squadron" would appear to be the creation of a banned user. Neither primary nor secondary sources use this term to describe the assets of the United States Navy that were stationed at New Orleans. 2. This is written by an indefinitely suspended user with a history of adding essays to wikipedia. 3. It lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to meet WP:GNG. 4. Given that this "unit" is not documented elsewhere, it is a new "unit" as theorised by the creator's original research. This "unit" is not recognized as such by the United States Navy. 4. The article is unsourced, like a lot of the fantasy essays that he published on wikipedia. It is a given that one of the ships mentioned was at the Battle of Lake Borgne but it was not there as part of this fantasy "unit".


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Keith_H99#The_Borge_belt_-_Az81964444_is_$1LENCE_D00600D?
Further comment on this user's fantasist activities above. Keith H99 (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I checked my sources as well. While I support the deletion of the current article due to the lack of citations and questionable content, it appears that the title of New Orleans Squadron was retroactively made to refer to the gaggle of Navy-related boats in the area, and as such counts as original research/imaginative. I have found nothing that refers to an established squadron raised for the War of 1812. This article from the USNI refers to a formal New Orleans Station tasked with the protection of American assets in the region that fought during the war. The American Battlefield Trust also refers to an to the small fleet in the region that defended the area. The article could be true if mentions of an established unit are removed.
On a related note, I saw your comments on the article's talk page. I can confirm that a Tickler did exist during the campaign, although it is questionable weather she was commissioned or not. Many of the small 1-gun gallies have little information on them, as they were likely purchased for the wart. GGOTCC 16:15, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: After a quick Google scholar search, I've found a few sources that mention "New Orleans Squadron" ([9], [10], [11], [12]), though I'm not sure it applies to the same squadron mentioned in the article. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Significa liberdade
    The existing article states the Squadron existed from an undetermined start date through 1838. I do not believe this to be the case, insofar as a different group name of the Navy vessels, being those of the "New Orleans Station", was used to refer to those vessels in this locality.
    The articles, upon first glance, would appear to relate to an entity that was in existence decades later, and certainly after the date when it was purportedly merged with the Home Squadron.
    It appears an entity of this name was in existence, albeit fifty years later, and whose vessels did not therefore participate in the War of 1812.
    The article was created by an editor who created a number of fantasy essays, the content of which did not stand up to scrutiny. Some of their fantasy content lingered on wikipedia for many years. This seemed like another essay that could not be rewritten and was best deleted. Keith H99 (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Keith H99! I have no issue with this article being deleted, just wanted to share a few sources I found that might be useful. It is worth noting that one of the sources is discussing 1814 and mentions the Squadron. Again, I have no idea if this is the same squadron discussed in the article. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello again,
    The Vogel article (via JSTOR) has "New Orleans" in uppercase, and "squadron" in lowercase. As such it is using a collective noun to describe some vessels, and is not referring to a formally titled body of ships that is a permanent formation.
    A search was performed within the excellent fourth volume of The Naval War of 1812, Edited by Hughes & Brodine, Jr., from the Naval Historical Center. There were no instances of "New Orleans Squadron" that I encountered. Given this is a US Navy publication, via the G.P.O., I would have expected the proper nouns of US Navy formations to be in evidence within this publication, where a bona fide formation exists.
    https://www.history.navy.mil/research/publications/publications-by-subject/naval-war-of-1812.html
    I am puzzled that if an entity of this name was in existence during the American Civil War, why has this not been reflected in this article, within the last 15 years? Keith H99 (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Of pertinence to this article, I looked at the US Navy's website entry for USS Louisiana.
    https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/l/louisiana-i.html
    They refer to the sloop as "The heaviest and most powerfully armed ship in Patterson's small flotilla". Were it the case that the formation commanded by Patterson were known as the "New Orleans Squadron" then I would have expected such a term to have been used here. Keith H99 (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Significa liberdade.
    I am pleased to report that the other article, a copyright violation for nearly 15 years, has been addressed by a root-and-branch rework.
    It does seem that the banned user only "wrote" when putting together his nationalistic fantasy essays, and for the genuinely noteworthy topics, he plagiarised content from elsewhere on the internet. Keith H99 (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have spent time recently on rescuing the USS Louisiana from fourteen years of copyright violation, to revamp it, and to similarly add further content to USS Carolina from reliable sources. I have yet to see any reference to the fantasy unit of "New Orleans Squadron" in any of the literature.Keith H99 (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Military Proposed deletions

edit

The following articles have been tagged for proposed deletion:

edit

The following military-related IfD's are currently open for discussion:

  • None at present
edit

The following military-related MfD's are currently open for discussion:

edit

The following military-related TfD's are currently open for discussion:

None at present
edit

The following military-related CfD's are currently open for discussion:

edit

The following military-related RfD's are currently open for discussion:

edit
  • None at present
edit

The following military-related Speedy Deletions are currently open:

None at present

edit

The following military-related Deletion reviews are currently open for discussion:

None at present

edit

None at present

edit

None at present

edit

None at present

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Military&oldid=1308344283"