Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

watch

Military and combat

Rajendrapur Cantonment Public School and College

Rajendrapur Cantonment Public School and College (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 does not provide substantial independent coverage and depends mainly on promotional content and local news. It fails to satisfy WP:GNG due to a lack of third-party references that demonstrate its significance. Nxcrypto Message 12:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Draftify - It Should Be Moved to A Draft. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk)

  Why? What are you going to do with the draft that you didn't do when you wrote the article in the first place? – Joe (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

  Oh Really? I didn’t even properly know what draft was back then in July, I knew a small fraction. Not everyone knows every Wikipedia policy or the majority of them. I will try to Increase the amount of references, What's the problem here? User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Schools, and Bangladesh. Skynxnex (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Ramu Cantonment Public School and College

Ramu Cantonment Public School and College (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 lacks significant independent coverage and relies heavily on primary sources, primarily promotional material and local news. Without substantial third-party references, the article does not meet WP:GNG. Nxcrypto Message 11:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Schools, and Bangladesh. Skynxnex (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Lalmonirhat Cantonment Public School And College

Lalmonirhat Cantonment Public School And College (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 significant independent coverage and relies primarily on promotional material and local news sources. It fails to meet WP:GNG as there is absence of third-party references to substantiate its relevance. Nxcrypto Message 12:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Schools, and Bangladesh. Skynxnex (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Gafur Bahini

Gafur Bahini (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 lacks sufficient independent sources to establish notability and relies heavily on a two local disputed references. Its content overlaps with broader articles on the Bangladesh Liberation War and Mukti Bahini, making it potentially redundant. Nxcrypto Message 09:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 09:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: I think the article fails WP:GNG. --CometVolcano (talk) 09:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
• Seriously? This is a notable militia. At, this point, These AfDs does not seem like It's for improvement of Wikipedia and, instead it is for targeting anybody and nominating their pages for deletion every time. I can add way more citations, The page could've just been improved by looking for citations. If you wanna delete all pages I created, Just tell me, I now understand the reason for deleting pages of minor skirmishes, but this is just different. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk)
• The user who nominated for deletion, literally deleted sources and then the argument was on relying on two sources, Seriously? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk)
• Violation - Some of these AfDs have been decided on votes, and not proper arguments. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk)
• Draftify if Needed If this topic does not have enough notability, We Shouldn’t Completely Delete it, We could put into draft. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk)
• Delete: After conducting a notability test, I conclude that the article does not meet any notability criteria. The subject of the article does not have significant coverage from multiple independent sources. Tried to search, but unable to find such coverage, and the article fails to meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 12:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

  Draftification will not help because this is a historical article, and if no coverage is found now, there is little chance it will receive coverage in the future. GrabUp - Talk 12:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Lisec ambush

Lisec ambush (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 appear to be a notable ambush. All of the CNN sources that were used as sources appear to be dead. I think the content of the article can be merged into other related articles (2001 insurgency in Macedonia and National Liberation Army (Macedonia)) if other sources are found anyway. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Police, Albania, and North Macedonia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Doesn't need to be a standalone article even if sources are found. --Local hero ^talk 01:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Aviation accidents in Japan involving U.S. military and government aircraft post-World War II

Aviation accidents in Japan involving U.S. military and government aircraft post-World War II (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:NLIST Launchballer 13:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Aviation, Japan, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete does not meet WP:SAL. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Appears to meet WP:SAL. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. Aviation accidents in Japan involving U.S. military and government aircraft have been discussed as a group eg. [1], [2] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Mandan

Battle of Mandan (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 need of this standalone article as it is an insignificant event in the History of Rajasthan. The content should be merged into List of battles in Rajasthan or any article related to Shekhawats. There has been duplication of efforts by editors to convert minor events from some big events into seperate article leading to creation of WP: REDUNDANTFORK. Admantine123 (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Admantine123 (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect/Merge to List_of_battles_in_Rajasthan#18th_Century seems like a good option.--Brocade River Poems (She/They) 21:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Khetasar

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

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

This is a WP: REDUNDANTFORK of Rathore rebellion (1679–1707). Such articles led to duplication. Also, out of the three sources, 2nd one inot a WP:RS. It is some personal commentary written by someone associated with the Kingdom. Hence it should be deleted and content, if something found relevant should be merged into the main article or the Durgadas Rathore. Admantine123 (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Admantine123 (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Khatu Shyamji

Battle of Khatu Shyamji (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 not fulfilling WP:GNG. It is based on single source and also a very insignificant event with not much content to write has been converted into an article.It should be deleted and content, if any found relevant should be merged into something related to List of battles in Rajasthan.Admantine123 (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Admantine123 (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Mughal–Rajput wars

Mughal–Rajput wars (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 poor WP:CONTENTFORK (WP:REDUNDANTFORK) from several articles like Rajput Rebellion (1708–1710), Rathore rebellion (1679–1707) and List of battles in Rajasthan. The individual topic like Battle of Khanwa has been stitched together to create an article suggesting that something like Mugal Rajput wars were a single homogeneous event spread over the different period of time. The individual topics are isolated events and a duplication from the List of battles in Rajasthan. So it should be deleted and content if anything that is here but not in List of battles in Rajasthan should be merged to latter. Admantine123 (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Admantine123 (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete like so many Maratha/Mughal articles recently, a hopeless mix of WP:SYNTH, exaggerations, and misrepresentations. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Dewair (1606)

Battle of Dewair (1606) (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 WP: REDUNDANTFORK from Mughal conquest of Mewar. There was no need to create this standalone article as the content is already present in the other article. Hence it should be deleted. Admantine123 (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Admantine123 (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to Mughal conquest of Mewar per nom. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

1974 Nicosia airport battle

1974 Nicosia airport battle (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 was recently copied over from simple:Battle of Nicosia Airport spun off from Military operations during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, but discussion at Talk:1974 Nicosia airport battle and my own check of available reliable sources have not uncovered sources with significant coverage. I'd be thrilled if anyone could prove me incorrect, but without that I'd propose re-merging this article and covering the topic in a paragraph or two, emulating the references used now in the article. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 05:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Cyprus, Greece, and Turkey. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 05:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually it was taken from simple wikipedia according to the creator here. Also stop changing the name when nobody recognises it as such. As to coverage thats your opinion at this point. ShovelandSpade (talk) 08:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Also to clarify the article has over 20 references ranging from journals, to books to news articles, it by more than far is in compliance with wikis notability guidelines, there are a few claims which are unreferenced but I am currently working on adding sources for them too (I didnt make the article so), doubt that warrants article deletion though. ShovelandSpade (talk) 10:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I've corrected it. For more information about WP:SIGCOV, I'd invite you to re-read the article's talk page discussion. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 15:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. There are no reliable sources calling the events at Nicosia Airport during the day of the Military operations during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus#23 July 1974, the "Battle of Nicosia Airport". It is WP:OR by a single editor despite protests from editors in the WP:MILHIST project. They have ignored and/or reverted any attempt to address this issue (and are still edit warring).

The information about the event is already in the Military operations during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus#23 July 1974, and as the redirect of "Battle of Nicosia Airport" is really OR, I think it is more of a delete (and salt) than a merge. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Most sources in that page indicate both the severity and name the battle of the airport yet two users seem to not only disregard that, are also straight up lying about whats written.

Cyprus mail article- "The battle for Nicosia airport wasn’t – objectively speaking – the bloodiest of the many dark events that took place exactly 50 years ago, but it may have been the most consequential."

Reuters article- "this airport was the theatre of some of the fiercest battles between Greek Cypriot troops and an invading Turkish army in 1974"

Im seriously confused as to why you guys are stiring up such a problem with an article that has more than ample sources, if we compare articles with the same events, such as Battle of Paitilla Airport, the sources are not only very few, but oddly enough its still called "Battle of Paitilla Airport" even though I cant see any of the 5 sources stating that name clearly. ShovelandSpade (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

If The Guardian says that there was a pitched "battle" between rioters and police in Trafalgar Square, that does not mean that we create an article for the Battle of Trafalgar Square. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Read what im saying and stop going off on a tangent. As youve displayed here, youre moving the goalposts as soon as you see that you are wrong. Also I dont know if youre playing dumb or trolling but what is the difference between "Battle of Nicosia airport" and "1974 Nicosia airport battle"? They both have that keyword battle, so again, I really dont understand your problem with this article when all other articles use the same logic. ShovelandSpade (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Including the name of the article you wish to have^ ShovelandSpade (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment, the page was created by a sockpuppet and deleted. Now it is recreated again. Users should check the last cases here as they are overlapping edits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cypriot_Chauvinist Shadow4dark (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  Page was brought over from simple wikipedia by user @Athinezos, again, check page history. ShovelandSpade (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  That explains a lot. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Harold Hadley (rugby league)

Harold Hadley (rugby league) (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:BIO and WP:SPORTSCRIT. He only played one first grade game. Could not find any indepth coverage of this person including looking in google books and Australian database Trove including searches like: https://trove.nla.gov.au/?keyword=%22Harold%20Hadley%22%20AIF LibStar (talk) 05:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Military, Rugby league, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 05:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Lacks significant coverage and one appearance isn't a notable career. Mn1548 (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Md Ziaul Hoque

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)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Without reading Bengali it's effectively impossible to find more sources as the subject has the same name as a former Pakistani president. However as a two star admiral I’d expect him to be a GNG pass. Mccapra (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  Unless I am missing something, there is no subject-specific notability guideline to that effect. His position does not necessarily guarantee coverage, and whose name he may share isn't a good reason to toss GNG to the wind. Garsh (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Being head of a national coast guard clearly makes him notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Sebiba

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)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Tunisia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:15, 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 [ P. 31 ] 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)

Happy with WP:TNT. I will write a new article using the above sources plus this one https://ixtheo.de/Record/792329171 which dedicates three sub-chapters (6 whole pages) to the battle, its aftermath and a comparison to the Battle of Haydaran which was part of the same conflict. @M.Bitton would you be content with moving to Draft space for me to do that? YFB ¿ 21:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure. M.Bitton (talk) 21:59, 1 October 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)

Thanks for the explanation. YFB ¿ 21:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Harold J. Dunlap

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^Talk 09:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Medicine, New York, and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Appears to be a resume or CV, likely a memorial page. I don't see notability, he was involved in his community and professional field, but nothing we'd consider notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete while he appears to have been an accomplished doctor within his community I'm not seeing a WP:GNG pass. He appears to have operated on several notable people, but that does not make the subject notable himself. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Northern Campaign of Raghunath Rao

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)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Afghanistan, Delhi, and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:33, 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)

• Keep - The Maratha Empire expanded from Tamil Nadu to Peshawar due to this campaign. It is a very big territory he captured, so very notable campaign. Crashed greek (talk) 04:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  But do sources say that this "campaign" as one coherent subject even existed? Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  I wonder which sources even claim this extent, or even associate a campaign by this name to this made-up exaggerated extent. PadFoot (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete yet more exaggeration, misrepresentation, and WP:SYNTH. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

National liberation struggle of the Ingush people

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)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Russia. Mccapra (talk) 06:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and History. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Ajmer

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Battle of Ajmer
• Articles for deletion/Battle of Ajmer (2nd nomination)

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)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. asilvering (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• Speedy delete according to [3], entirely written by a WP:LLM. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  gptzero's false positive rate isn't great - but I agree, I believe this is an LLM creation. -- asilvering (talk) 23:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Ibrahim Agha (Algeria)

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 Wikipedia article. Henry (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Royalty and nobility, and Algeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep the subject is plainly notable. Some of the article needs to be rewritten and looks to me like a cooyvio anyway, though I can’t get the source to load. Mccapra (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  The "Hussein's reaction" section was translated directly from this page: https://web.archive.org/web/20130612123908/https://www.algerie-ancienne.com/Salon/Galib/8France/01expedit/17staoueli.htm I also checked the "Early life" section but did not find copying there. Other sections may also have copyright violations or close paraphrasing, but it's unlikely the entire article has been copied or translated directly here, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Maratha Resurrection

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)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh. Skynxnex (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment It appears there is are scholar and book resources that mentions this event, so it may be supported by WP:RS. (click Scholar/Book link at the top of this AfD). Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  There are only two citations in scholar that mention such a term, one deals with paintings of early modern era India, and other deals with Vidarbha cotton, none of them are specialised histories regarding the subject. PadFoot (talk) 16:41, 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)

• Delete Britannica is okay but per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, secondary sources are preferable. If there’s only one secondary source shown, then for now I am okay with deleting the article, until notability is established. I can be persuaded from my vote if someone provides more sources using this term. Someguywhosbored (talk) 04:37, 27 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 [4]. 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not persuaded by these keep !votes but it would be best to get a clearer consensus in light of the (good faith, out of inexperience) canvassing here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hamas most wanted playing cards

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Hamas most wanted playing cards
• Articles for deletion/Hamas most wanted playing cards (2nd nomination)

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)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:SYNTH does not apply. The GNG and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE do apply. The GNG has been established and hence the article was kept in the past. See this Makor Rishon source from July 2024 as proof for CONTINUED INTEREST. gidonb (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  That's a better source, do you have more? Oaktree b (talk) 21:00, 27 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)

• Delete Replaying my !vote from the last discussion, it was a crap article then and it's still a crap article now, no-one is interested in this rubbish. Selfstudier (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. Nominator claims these are not physical playing cards. They are very physical. See for example here to see many pictures. gidonb (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  I've corrected the statement, it's the lack of sources... Oaktree b (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Contrary to the statement above with the nomination, there is visual evidence, stored on Wikipedia Commons, and included in the article itself, of this being a real playing card deck. Moreover, as the individuals originally identified in the deck of cards continue to have changes to the status column of the article, the lasting effect and import of the cards continues to grow (WP:EFFECT). Coining (talk) 01:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  Correction: I mean there doesn't appear to be coverage of the cards. I know they exist, we've seen photos of them. Oaktree b (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  I've amended the nomination; due to a lack of sources, not the fact that the exist, that we're debating here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per above. We won't know of lasting impact until maybe years from now.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  That's a CRYSTALBALL, doesn't really help. Oaktree b (talk) 16:04, 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 [[5]]. 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.[6][7] 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)

• Keep per Coining. Andre🚐 23:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Battle at Tel al-Hawa

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 Wikipedia artifice. Tagged for notability last month but no evidence of any discussion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 16:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Israel, and Palestine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Unsure. There is this article in Countercurrents.org. These articles[8][9] also give a higher level overview of the topic. Might need to do more research.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. There is very little in searches about a "Battle at Tel al-Hawa"; in theory we could create many other "battles" around this conflict. We should stick to the ones that are noted in quality military sources; many such contrived battles in the Ukraine-Russia conflict are being rationalised (we get historic cases re-imaged as "battles" like Battle of Nicosia Airport). Aszx5000 (talk) 08:23, 27 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

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. Wikipedia discourages articles based on WP:NOTNEWS and this is nothing more than that. Nxcrypto Message 14:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Bangladesh, and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - article seems well sourced, and several sources are in the late 2010s, some 40 years after the conflict itself, making a nonsense of the “no lasting coverage” claim… it’s… difficult not to see this as politically based spamming since the last couple of nominations on Indian-Bangladeshi border skirmishes from this same editor are just cut and paste, and they have nominated other similar articles last week too… I’ll assume good faith though, and just say that I disagree that the article meets the criteria for deletion based on the merits. Absurdum4242 (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep It is a notable incident, Lasting effect? It did have some. Nxcrypto, I noticed that you are copying the same message in similar AfD Discussions, Without even checking the page and It's content and aftermath a lot. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (Message)
• True The 1979 clash is very notable and it does not violate Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Nxcrypto for some reason is copying and pasting the same message in multiple AfD Discussions, And some people will not check the page and just want to delete it, So they will say "It does not establish WP:GNG and WP:Lasting", Even when, It is clearly notable event with coverage many years later. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (Message)
• Citations - The page has several citations including from books and newspapers, some require subscription or have limited information but I think the page meets with General Notability Guidelines. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (Talk with BangladeshiEditorInSylhet)
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Creating an article by collecting outdated archives instead of modern sources ensures that the subject failed to attract lasting coverage. --Dympies (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete The incident was itself so insignificant that it makes sense why it fails WP:GNG. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  Really? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:49, 3 October 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)

• Keep Passes WP:GNG, enough coverage in WP:RS including editorials. Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• No. Not at all. Nxcrypto Message 08:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• Draft if Needed - I suggest draft if this does get deleted. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet
• Delete Yet to see a single source that addresses the concerns of the nom. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  Seriously? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Merge to Bangladesh–India border as an alternative to deletion. This article is not primarily about the 1979 border firing. Three-quarters of it is about border incidents before or after that. The 1979 event had no lasting effect and there is limited sustained coverage of it in secondary sources, making it a poor choice of topic for a stand alone article. It would, however, be worth a paragraph in a broader article that put it in context with the many other exchanges of gunfire across this border. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge. Passes WP:GNG] and Wikipedia is well-known for its systemic bias against topics in this part of the world. A merge to Bangladesh–India border would also be acceptable as a secondary result. Deletion should not be an option here.--User:Namiba 16:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Melvin Storer

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)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, California, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
• Weak delete as WP:BIO1E, despite some coverage. Mztourist (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Yes non-notable person. Xegma(talk) 06:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep or Redirect coverage passes GNG: The Oregon Daily Journal 2 3, The Oregonian 2, Herald and News and also meets WP:ANYBIO with the Asiatic–Pacific Campaign Medal. 1 but also a case of WP:BIO1E. The Attack on Pearl Harbor could be an appropriate place for a redirect, but the subject does have enough WP:SIGCOV at Newspapers.com to justify a standalone article.

Filmforme (talk) 06:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• A low-level decoration does not confer notability. Only the Medal of Honor, Victoria Cross, or multiple second-level awards do that. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:06, 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)

• Delete per WP:BIO1E. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Passes WP:GNG. He was involved in two events: the attack on Pearl Harbor and the salvage effort (which I consider deserves its own article even though it has not got one). WP:BIO1E is a guideline that provides advice but does not trump WP:SUMMARY, which says that sections of long articles can be spun off into their own articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 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)

• Delete An ordinary sailor, doing ordinary things.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:47, 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 ^{Read! Talk!} 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)

Military Proposed deletions

The following articles have been tagged for proposed deletion:

• 25th Bangladesh Infantry Regiment (via WP:PROD on 30 January 2024)
• Mei Chia-shu (via WP:PROD on 28 January 2024)

Current PRODs

• Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Article alerts#PROD

Military-related Images and media for Deletion

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

• None at present

Military-related Miscellany for deletion

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

Military-related Templates for Deletion

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

None at present

Military-related Categories for Discussion

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

Military-related Redirects for Deletion

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

Military-related Possibly Unfree Files

• None at present

Military-related Speedy Deletion

The following military-related Speedy Deletions are currently open:

None at present

Military-related Deletion Review

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

None at present

Military-related Requests for Undeletion

None at present

Military-related material at other deletion processes

None at present

Military related deletions on Commons

None at present