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

Nationalities at the Eureka Stockade

Nationalities at the Eureka Stockade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone article. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Austria. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll just note that The Eureka Encyclopaedia has various entries such as "Canadians at the Eureka Stockade" and "Italians at the Eureka Stockade" etc. Robbiegibbons (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Bibliography of the Eureka Rebellion

Bibliography of the Eureka Rebellion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone list. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Australia. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Needs trimming, but such bibliography articles are usually alright for extensively-covered topics. Curbon7 (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  I would argue that it is well covered topic. We could trim the bibliography or we could triple the size of it actually. But all the really seminal sources are already there. Robbiegibbons (talk) 23:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I still think it's a handy article. I see that there are other similar bibliographies, such as the Bibliography of the American Revolutionary War. Robbiegibbons (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

This could be an easy keep if there is evidence presented that books about this topic have been discussed as a group. Have they? It seems notorious enough that it's possible. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

White nationalism and the Eureka Rebellion

White nationalism and the Eureka Rebellion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone article. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep on grounds offered. This seems a classic WP:SUMMARYSTYLE spin-out of a subtopic to a separate article. It's possible that it should be merged or reorganized elsewhere but if there isn't an issue with the content, then complying with WP:SIZE sometimes means making such branch articles as these. Nothing new there. It's only a content fork if the exact same matter is discussed in two different places (usually the fork applying its own unique spin on the topic), and that doesn't appear to be the case? SnowFire (talk) 09:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• With some tightening of the text (which reads a bit too much like an essay rather than a statement of facts) this could merge with the main article on the Eureka Rebellion which has a lengthy quote about the Chinese presence but which does not explain the racial issues nearly as well as this article. Lamona (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Republicanism and the Eureka Rebellion

Republicanism and the Eureka Rebellion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone article. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Politics, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to Eureka Rebellion. This article, and others related, including Eureka Rebellion are fully sourced but are written in the tone of essays or book chapters rather than encyclopedia articles. First, the reliance on quotes is unnecessary and those concepts should be stated in the article with cites, not quoted at length. Second, there are statements like "contains a hint that the movement contained those" "There may have been a declaration of independence drawn up by someone" "no discoveries have been made, nor is there any clear and convincing evidence". These statements might be fine in a history book or an essay arguing points, but Wikipedia needs to be a statement of facts, not suppositions. I also note that this does not appear to be a fork of the Eureka Rebellion article because that article does not include this information on republicanism. Essentially these separate articles are like chapters in a larger book. For WP a separate article can expand on a topic in another article, but the relation between these articles is not clear. I suspect that a re-write of the entire series on this topic need to be deeply edited as to style and content. Lamona (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Loyalism and the Eureka Rebellion

Loyalism and the Eureka Rebellion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone article. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete Per nom, completely unneeded fork of a standalone article that itself (the fork) doesn't fulfill notability. Noorullah (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

List of notable public officials in the Eureka Rebellion

List of notable public officials in the Eureka Rebellion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone list. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, Military, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd have to say these lists are exactly what I was looking for when I started researching the Eureka Rebellion though. There has already been complaints about the length of the main Eureka Rebellion article. We were told a few years back to start creating new sub articles and then link them to the main article instead. I see the Alamo article has two associated lists. Most of the List of Alamo defenders don't seem to have their own biographical entries either. I reckon some of these stories about the more minor officials will help our readers with the big picture. Robbiegibbons (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy to keep the article and limit new additions to people who already have their own wikipedia article. However, most of what I know about lists on wikipedia comes from studying other wikipedia lists. And I've seen many lists where not even five per cent of the people on it are hyperlinked. Robbiegibbons (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

List of notable civilians in the Eureka Rebellion

List of notable civilians in the Eureka Rebellion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone list. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, Military, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

List of military leaders in the Eureka Rebellion

List of military leaders in the Eureka Rebellion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone list. Most of the people in the list lack notability for a Wikipedia article. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, Military, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Going all the way down to ensigns and corporals is excessive. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  How do we feel about possibly finding a way to incorporate some or all of this information about the opposing command structures into the article on the Battle of the Eureka Stockade instead? Robbiegibbons (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

List of Eureka Stockade defenders

List of Eureka Stockade defenders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone list. Almost all of the people in the list lack notability for a Wikipedia article. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, Military, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be a similar List of Alamo defenders article and some of them aren't notable enough for their own biographical page either. Robbiegibbons (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. The Alamo has a much higher significance, and a good proportion of those defenders do have articles. A list of every defender, absent defender and non-combatant caught in the middle is too much. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  I grant you that the Alamo might have more significance to our American readers. But in Australian terms the Eureka Stockade is definitely folkloric. I've seen Wikipedia lists where some of the people wouldn't meet the general notability criteria to qualify for a biographical entry of their own. Some of those names on the List of Alamo defenders do have their own Wikipedia articles. But I just picked about a dozen people from the Alamo list at random and searched Wikipedia for them and nothing else came up. I don't know about the rest of you. But what I'm hoping to do here is help Wikipedia take over from Eurekapedia. And Eurekapedia has a list of Eureka Stockade defenders. Robbiegibbons (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I just thought that the Eureka Stockade defenders should have a list of their own if the Alamo defenders also have one. Robbiegibbons (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Robbiegibbons I leave it up to others as to whether or not there will be a list. The Alamo is different in that we honestly don't know, and may never know, who all was there. All the time, we find new evidence of someone, and also pull someone we listed in error (Talk:List of Alamo defenders). The entire Texas revolution was about slavery. The constitution of Mexico outlawed slavery, but the white slave owners who moved to Texas, brought their slaves with them. Good luck, and keep doing the good work you do. — Maile (talk) 01:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The Eureka Rebellion is a bona fide part of Australian folklore. The article on the rebel war flag the Eureka Flag says the design pattern was a rival to the official Australian national flag twenty years ago before the Eureka Flag started to appear on bumper stickers with racial slogans. And that's the other point I would make. The people at Ballarat Heritage Services are always adding to the body of knowledge as well. If we decide to keep these lists then you can rest assured that as detailed as they are. They're not as detailed as they're going to be. I always hoped the Wikipedia Eureka Rebellion series itself would spur some more research. As good as www.eurekapedia.org is. I want to be given the opportunity to see if wikipedia can do even better. If we can get every article in the series up to good article status then BHS might be willing to donate some or all of their image library to wikimedia. The list of Eureka Stockade defenders is vastly more informative than the one on the Alamo defenders if the truth be known. Some of those obituaries of the Eureka rebels contain some pretty interesting stuff. If the list is going to stand then I do have about ten more sources with additional details that I could cite. Robbiegibbons (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The Alamo defenders were [nearly] all killed, and a number of them were very famous in their own right before the battle; most of the Eureka Stockade ones weren't. It makes a significant difference. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Please see List of Texian survivors of the Battle of the Alamo. Not everybody inside the Alamo died. — Maile (talk) 11:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Mostly, compared to the mostly surviving ES defenders. A last stand vs. a not-last stand. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep on grounds offered. Maybe there's some other unfixable problem here (e.g. if "The Eureka Encyclopedia" is argued an unreliable source), but "Almost all of the people in the list lack notability for a Wikipedia article" is not a valid deletion reason - see WP:NLIST, where lists of individually non-notable yet collectively notable groups are explicitly allowed. Article creator makes a decent case that the defenders are notable collectively so this is a valid WP:SUMMARYSTYLE spinout of the Battle of the Eureka Stockade article, which is already on the long side. SnowFire (talk) 09:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

List of detainees at the Eureka Stockade

List of detainees at the Eureka Stockade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone list. Almost all of the people in the list lack notability for a Wikipedia article. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, Military, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  This article is along the same lines as the List of Alamo defenders article and some of them aren't notable enough for their own biographical page either. Robbiegibbons (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

How do we feel about incorporating some of this information into the 1855 Victorian high treason trials instead? Robbiegibbons (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

List of colonial forces in the Eureka Rebellion

List of colonial forces in the Eureka Rebellion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone list. None of the names in the list are notable enough for a Wikipedia article. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. A listing of every soldier and policeman present is far too much detail. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  I note that with the article on List of Alamo defenders we only have scant information about most of them too. Not many of them seem to have their own biographical entries either. So allow me then to suggest something. We could merge the article List of military leaders in the Eureka Rebellion with the articles on List of Eureka Stockade defenders and List of colonial forces in the Eureka Rebellion. What we would be left with is one article with a list of all the rebel commanders and the Eureka Stockade defenders. And another list that includes only the top-level military and police commanders along with some of the more notable attackers. Like those who were killed and injured and were involved in taking the rebels prisoner etc. Robbiegibbons (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Far too much detail. Also delete the similar additions to Suffolk Regiment and 40th (the 2nd Somersetshire) Regiment of Foot. These huge lists are undue and swamp those articles. Also see WP:VNOT. Dormskirk (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Alfonso de Ceballos-Escalera y Gila

Alfonso de Ceballos-Escalera y Gila (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 wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The presently used references are either primary or unreliable sources. The article was deleted on Spanish Wikipedia in 2018; that discussion also points out the issues with this article. toweli (talk) 12:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, History, Law, Military, Royalty and nobility, and Spain. toweli (talk) 12:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  KEEP The author has written books and articles some of which may be found on: https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=Alfonso%2Bde%2BCeballos-Escalera%2By%2BGila&crid=24HSSVNYBC0FT&sprefix=alfonso%2Bde%2Bceballos-escalera%2By%2Bgila%2Caps%2C115&ref=nb_sb_noss and https://www.google.com/search?sa=N&sca_esv=d139cd1eb4e89a1c&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ADLYWIIv_Al2K0HM9e6rfLi85owlYKwEgw:1723893341467&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Alfonso+de+Ceballos-Escalera+y+Gila%22&ved=2ahUKEwibxv6R8_uHAxWsSkEAHWwMEK8Q9Ah6BAgKEAc&biw=2627&bih=948&dpr=1.31

  He acts as the Cronista of Castilla y Leon (Decree 105/1991, May 9 (Official Gazette of Castile and Leon, May 16, 1991) " Art. 16.- The Chronicler of Arms of Castile and Leon shall report on any matters within his specialty submitted to him by the Junta of Castile and Leon and the Provincial Councils, and shall hold the traditional powers and competences of the former Chroniclers, Kings of Arms and Heralds of Castile and Leon, contained in the Royal Decree of July 29, 1915, and the Decree of April 13, 1951." There are two schools of thought as to the extent of his powers, in relation to parts of the Royal Decree of 1915, as there were in relation to the validity of the last Cronista of Spain, but in both cases as a practical matter there has been widespread acceptance of acts carried out by the office holder. As may be seen, the Wikipedia accounts would benefit from amplification of the entries by competent people https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronista_Rey_de_Armas

  There has throughout the 20th century been a deep split in Spanish society between the conservative and monarchist half and the republican including the leftist half, and though nominally a monarchy there are parts even of the institutions of Spain that are opposed to all manifestations of the right or of monarchical prerogative. The position of cronista is one of the battlegrounds on which this has been fought [sources available]. The subject of this article is distinguished both socially and academically, and the desire to delete or cancel him may owe something to his position as a supporter of the rightist political party Vox. For this reason, in the interest of free debate and given the distinguished career of the subject, which would normally merit inclusion, it is suggested that his entry be amended by inclusion (by a qualified Spanish speaker) of a list of his publications. 2.96.174.234 (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep I see he is the author of multiple books and there is significant coverage of him in the news (see 1 and 2. Not the strongest case for keeping and the article itself is pretty weird but I think it passes. Mccapra (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Preparations for the 2003 invasion of Iraq

Preparations for the 2003 invasion of Iraq (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:POVFORK of 2003 invasion of Iraq, where this content is already covered (and in a less POV way). Redirect to 2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Preparations_for_war. Longhornsg (talk) 07:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Terrorism, Iraq, United Kingdom, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 07:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. There is indeed a problem but I don't think redirect is a good idea, let alone a solution. This article was created back in 2003 as a very reasonable fork, in my view sensibly. The main article was, as is, far too long. For most of these 21 years there has been no adequate link from the main article to this one and so this spin-off has languished. Material from 2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Preparations_for_war should be moved here leaving behind only a brief summary. This would improve both articles. Thincat (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep. I agree with the above suggestion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Don't think it's a good idea to try to merge or redirect. 2003 invasion of Iraq was put up for Feature Candidacy in 2006, and as mentioned above, was deemed too lengthy and had to be trimmed. This is what was forked off into its own article. — Maile (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Operation Bayonet Lightning

Operation Bayonet Lightning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Operation Iron Justice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Operation Bulldog Mammoth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Operation Panther Squeeze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Operation Ivy Blizzard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Operation Badlands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Operation Dagger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Operation Warrior's Rage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Operation Scorpion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

One of many individual articles created 20 years ago in the wake of the Iraq War that would not meet WP:GNG today. Articles cover WP:ROUTINE and non-notable military operations, of which there were tens (if not hundreds) of thousands during the war. None of these are significant like Operation Red Dawn is. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, any coverage around these operations is in the context of the war and don't warrant a standalone page. Merge selectively into List of coalition military operations of the Iraq War, which provides better context, then redirect. Longhornsg (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, Iraq, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Politics. Curbon7 (talk) 09:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Merge all to List of coalition military operations of the Iraq War. Limited sourcing and individual notability, no need for standalone articles. Reywas92^Talk 13:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Merge per above. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

2020 Deir ez-Zor ambush

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/2020 Deir ez-Zor ambush
• Articles for deletion/2020 Deir ez-Zor ambush (2nd nomination)

2020 Deir ez-Zor 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)

Redirect to Timeline_of_the_Syrian_civil_war_(2020)#December, where this event is already included and covered better contextually. Unfortunately WP:ROUTINE military operation as part of the Syrian Civil War that is not WP:LASTING. Longhornsg (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Syria. Longhornsg (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Terrorism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Redirect per nom. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

April 2015 Qalamoun incident

April 2015 Qalamoun incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect to Qalamoun offensive (May–June 2015), where it makes more sense and already covered in more context. This incident fails WP:LASTING on its own. One of thousands of routine military operations during the Syrian Civil War. Longhornsg (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, Israel, and Syria. Longhornsg (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Redirect per nom. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect as suggested, per ATD and CHEAP. I double checked that this is fairly covered at the target and that no merge is needed. gidonb (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect As per nom, this fails WP:LASTING. Gödel2200 (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect as is reasonable. Bearian (talk) 05:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Noble Compañia de Ballesteros Hijosdalgo de San Felipe y Santiago

Noble Compañia de Ballesteros Hijosdalgo de San Felipe y Santiago (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 wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The only reference given in the article is non-independent, as it was written by someone who is described as the "commander" of the confraternity. There are also a few external links (including in the text), none of which establish notability of the subject either. toweli (talk) 13:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Organizations, Royalty and nobility, and Spain. toweli (talk) 13:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Historical background of the Russo-Ukrainian War

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Historical background of the Russo-Ukrainian War (2nd nomination)

Historical background of the Russo-Ukrainian War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

It is with a heavy heart that I propose deletion of this page.

The reason is simple: the scope of this article is untenable. When this page was originally created in 2014, it attempted to provide socio-historical background information for readers of the article 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, which covered then ongoing protests in particular regions of that country. It primarily served as a sub-article of 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, because that article had got too long. The scope of the article at the time of its creation was a product of that time, and the limited sources that were then available. As the conflict evolved, it became apparent that the article was no longer functioning, leading to a previous deletion discussion in 2022. The result of that discussion was 'keep', despite acknowledgement of concerns about the article's content, including potential WP:OR analysis of primary sources.

All of the existing content has been systematically deleted from the article this year, and the article moved and rescoped. Now, this article purports to provide the historical background to the multi-faceted geopolitical conflict that is the Russo-Ukrainian War, and yet completely fails to do so. In fact, it is unlikely that it will ever be able to do so, because its scope is too broad, with much of the relevant content provided in other articles, such as Russo-Ukrainian War. At present, it seems to be nothing more than a WP:COATRACK for miscellaneous history, without any clear narrative or connection to the actual topic it purports to describe: no link is established between the article contents and the war that began in 2014.

Is the whole history of Ukraine within the scope of this article? The whole history of Russia? These could both legitimately claimed to be 'historical background' to the current conflict, and there may be reliable sources that establish such a reality. However, an article with such a scope could never actually function on Wikipedia as anything other than a WP:POVFORK of other better articles on this subject, such as Russia–Ukraine relations. Unfortunately, I think my dear friend Iryna, ever the wisest, has been proven correct by the test of time. She warned me and others that this article would become 'the biggest coatrack Wikipedia has ever seen', and that there was little hope in creating anything of value to the reader with an article scope this broad. Ah, the naivety of youth. If only I had listened...

Fundamentally, the deletion of the existing article content without community consensus is concerning from a procedural point of view. However, I agree in principle that the removed content no longer has an encyclopaedic purpose. For this reason, I suggest this article be deleted. 'Historical background of the Russo-Ukrainian War' may be a notable concept, though I note that no other war covered on Wikipedia has a similar article. I caution, as Iryna did so many years ago, that any such article is liable to become a WP:COATRACK. However, even if such an article is deemed viable for creation, in content, concept and scope, it would still be fundamentally different from the article the existed for ten years from 2014, and therefore I believe 'Blow it up and start over' applies. I propose a clean start. Who is with me? RGloucester — ☎ 05:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep The article is based on books by highly renowned historians, e.g. Andreas Kappeler and Serhii Plokhy. Those books were written explicitly to provide the historical background of that war. I don't see any of our guidelines supporting deletion. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a poorly written essay that heavily focuses on the Old Rus' question, while only briefly mentioning the other historical contexts of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. It almost completely omits the modern history of both countries. Additionally, some statements are of questionable neutrality. For example: 'The legal and bureaucratic traditions of Kievan Rus' were inherited by Lithuania, but not by Muscovy,' which, as far as I know, has no basis in historical fact.Marcelus (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I would also think creating a draft or starting over may work if it is considered viable (assuming there is no longer the problem with WP:OWN here). Mellk (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment The article has been marked as a stub since June 2024. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note: WikiProject Ukraine has been notified of this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ukraine#Deletion_discussion_at_WP:Articles_for_deletion/Historical_background_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War_(2nd_nomination) Rsk6400 (talk) 08:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• Keep the article could clearly use some work, but it does cite credible sources, of books that do focus on the historical background of the war in question no less. It should stay. Brat Forelli🦊 22:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Brat Forelli: If the whole history of Russo-Ukrainian relations is to be considered the 'historical background' of the war, how will this article ever serve as anything other than a content fork of Russia–Ukraine relations? RGloucester — ☎ 00:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The reason it serves a different purpose is because the Russian-Ukrainian relations do not provide a complete backgroud into the war, as there is also the Russian domestic developments and its relations with NATO that would be within the scope of this article. Brat Forelli🦊 01:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

This article does not provide a complete background into the war. No single article can ever provide a complete historical background of the war, because that would need to include the totality of Russian history, Ukrainian history, Nato history, &c., all of which are already covered in existing articles, which are already linked and described in the 'Background' section of Russo-Ukrainian War. For example, note Russia–NATO relations. Across Wikipedia, no other war has a 'historical background' article. What makes this a special case? What will this article achieve that is not achieved by the existing articles?　RGloucester — ☎ 01:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

2014 Bangladesh-Myanmar border skirmish

2014 Bangladesh-Myanmar border skirmish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

• Delete per nom. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 07:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Non notable event. At best, relevant information can be added to Bangladesh–Myanmar border. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Knowledge Aided Retrieval in Activity Context

Knowledge Aided Retrieval in Activity Context (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

• Keep per PARAKANYAA. No indication of WP:PROMO in the article. James500 (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information

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

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

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

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

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

16th Artillery Brigade (Ukraine)

16th Artillery Brigade (Ukraine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Keep. A brigade is clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Is there a notability guideline which states that? LibStar (talk) 10:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  Clearly an opinion based on the much mocked (by deletionists, of course) WP:COMMONSENSE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  Please answer the question. Which notability guideline grants inherent notability to brigades? LibStar (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  Your tone is most unlike any admin I've encountered. LibStar (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. First artillery brigade of the National Guard. [8] Ceriy (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Merge to National Guard of Ukraine. In the absence of a notability guideline granting inherent notability which I have asked for and received no response. LibStar (talk) 04:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Bajrur

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Looking at the sources (you can search within the third and see the lone sentence mentioning Bajrur) none call this the "Battle of Bajrur". It appears to have been a military action that doesn't even warrant a full paragraph's mention in any of the sources. The sourcing doesn't seem to be there for calling it a named battle, or retaining a Wikipedia article. --Here2rewrite (talk) 12:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Rumal

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Note to closer: I am a frequent recipient of harassment and targeting by an incredibly pertinacious sockmaster-[9] who created more than a dozen burner accounts in just the past year solely to target me. His socks most recently targeted my AFDs and PRODs- [10] and [11] and [12] and [13]. The most recent examples are this- in which his IP/proxy removed my PROD on the article Katoch-Sikh war, 2 admins have stated that this was almost certainly HB block evading- [14] + [15]. He has also employed meat puppetry to target AFDs and PRODs. Note that this IP also created a draft for Katoch-Sikh war, the same page HB's sock targeted, very heavily indicating sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry at play here. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

  Newly created account creating same articles that were AFDed and successfully deleted by me-[16] + [17]. Thanks. Will be taking to SPI or AN. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Note: In addition to very obviously being HB's sock/meatpuppet, you can see the IP and the account are clearly operated by the same person since they both submitted their drafts (Battle of Rori Sahib, Battle of Ambala, and Katoch Sikh war) minutes apart from each other-[18] + [19]. At the very very least, these votes should be accorded zero weight and obviously proves my point of a sock/meat campaign to target AFDs/reinstate articles which aggrandize their religion. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

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

  Note: MasterofRepulse has been blocked as a sock of a banned user. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion in hopes of more participation. Please focus on the article, its sources and whether or not notability is established. Stop making accusations about other editors, it doesn't help whatever argument you are making. If you suspect sockpuppetry, head to SPI, don't bring it up here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Could only find trivial namedrops in books. No significant coverage. C F A 💬 18:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

List of Swedish detainees at Guantanamo Bay

List of Swedish detainees at Guantanamo Bay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Also nominating the following articles for the same reason:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Concur AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus and there is one argument to treat these articles separately(as opposed to an "All" outcome). Also, would editors suggesting a Redirect identify their target article of choice? Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Afghanistan, Belgium, and Denmark. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• I'm probably neutral between redirect and deletion, but if you want to redirect I'd think the target would be List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. Bestagon ⬡ 14:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Edward Henry Burke Cooper

Edward Henry Burke Cooper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source review would be helpful at this point. "Fails GNG" is not specific enough.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Samsun clashes (1920)

Samsun clashes (1920) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Tal Afar uprising

Tal Afar uprising (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Iraq, Turkey, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Did the nominator conduct a WP:BEFORE search? The nominator would benefit from reading WP:NEXIST and WP:DINC. Curbon7 (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note: I will note that Chapter 8 of British Miscalculations does give some coverage to this rebellion (though they at times write the name as Tal'Afar). The introduction of the same book also comments as follows: The Fall of Tal Afar in June 1920 was the signal for a general uprising of all the tribes in the north. It spread to the middle of the Euphrates, and the position became serious. There are other works I see that describe it as the "Mesopotamian Rebellion of 1920", if that would help with a source search. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. According to Michael Andrew Kappelmann, Parallel Campaigns: The British in Mesopotamia, 1914–1920, and the United States in Iraq, 2003–2004 (2014), p. 53, the "insurgent rising at Tal Afar, a Turkmen village in the northwest Mosul vilayet, was the single deadliest incident since the end of the [first world] war. . . In all, 16 British soldiers, including two officers, were dead." He cites Aylmer Haldane, The Insurrection in Mesopotamia, 1920, and Gertrude Bell, Review of the Civil Administration of Mesopotamia. Srnec (talk) 01:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Gamaji Bhangare

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

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

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

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

• Keep: Although the article is not properly written but it meets the WP:GNG and WP:V per the cited sources.2409:4051:38B:9FBC:2307:730F:F39B:ED93 (talk) 03:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)— 2409:4051:38B:9FBC:2307:730F:F39B:ED93 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep: article is related to the Maratha Army of the Maratha empire that ruled northern India from 1600_1800 and also meets Verifiability.195.170.172.189 (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)— 195.170.172.189 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Delete fails GNG. One trivial mention in this journal (with the same text as this book). Nothing else. Although weirdly a mention apparently appears in The Wikipedia Revolution (Andrew Lih, 2009) but the contents are unavailable on Google Books so I'm not sure why. C F A 💬 16:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Operation Atilla (Turkish Invasion of Cyprus)

Operation Atilla (Turkish Invasion of Cyprus) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. Please remember to sign your comments. And don't worry about the article page title, that can be discussed if the article is Kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8^[contribs] 23:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Military Proposed deletions

The following articles have been tagged for proposed deletion:

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

Current PRODs

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

Military-related Images and media for Deletion

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

• None at present

Military-related Miscellany for deletion

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

Military-related Templates for Deletion

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

None at present

Military-related Categories for Discussion

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

Military-related Redirects for Deletion

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

Military-related Possibly Unfree Files

• None at present

Military-related Speedy Deletion

The following military-related Speedy Deletions are currently open:

None at present

Military-related Deletion Review

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

None at present

Military-related Requests for Undeletion

None at present

Military-related material at other deletion processes

None at present

Military related deletions on Commons

None at present