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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Haider Mehdi

Haider Mehdi (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)

Lacks in-depth coverage directly about him. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

John of Ibelin (died after 1250)

John of Ibelin (died after 1250) (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 indication of notability, no sources given. Even the name doesn't disambiguate correctly from John II, Lord of Beirut, and all sources I can find are about other Johns of Ibelin (often either the aforementioned or John, Old Lord of Beirut). ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 03:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, and Cyprus. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 03:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Delete - 10-minute search for sources at the usual locations only finds incidental mentions as part of the Ibelin house family trees. Page created in 2008 with a request for sources (infobox) present on the page since 2008... I doubt strongly this page meets notability criteria for an individual page - Mention as a member of the family tree is already present on House of Ibelin, which appears sufficient. Shazback (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Xianbei-Wa War (185)

Xianbei-Wa War (185) (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 about a purported war in 185 AD between the Inner Asian steppe nomads the Xianbei and the Wa of present-day Japan, is as fanciful as it appears. It lists three sources, which are, astonishingly enough, genuine, but none of them support the outlandish claim that the steppe nomads crossed the sea of Japan and fought the inhabitants there, nor any events of the year 185. The first source, "SGZ", apparently refers to Sanguo Zhi, and the cited passage talks about the reach of the Xianbei leader Tanshihuai - no mention of Wa of Japan. The second source, available online here, talks about Xiongnu burial rites and nothing about the Xianbei, let alone the Japanese. The last source notes that the Xianbei were defeated west of the Liao River in 177, a far cry from the grandiose claim that they forced the submission of the Wa and made them pay tribute. I must conclude this article is a hoax, and recommend that other articles by the same creator be scrutinized as well. _dk (talk) 07:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, China, Japan, and Mongolia. _dk (talk) 07:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
• Speedy delete A11. I think we need to start cracking down on editors who simply invent battles/campaigns/wars etc. Mccapra (talk) 07:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: It looks like hoax to me, per A11. CSMention269 (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Seems purely made-up, should be deleted. Noorullah (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - this is clearly bogus and agree that other contributions by this editor are likely deserving of additional attention. DCsansei (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
• Speedy delete No results on Google or Scholar. Maybe one should take a closer look at the other user's articles too. Killarnee (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: the same editor wrote Siege of Multan (1398), which has references that look likely to be spurious, if anyone has a moment to double-check this. -- asilvering (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Duncan Campbell (settler)

Duncan Campbell (settler) (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)

lacks notability —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 05:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, South Africa, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Has an entry in the Dictionary of South African Biography, so meets WP:ANYBIO #3. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• In addition to Necrothesp's two sources I have found a third. There are furthermore a couple of shorter biographies in other works to be had. Uncle G (talk) 07:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. National DNB entry is definitive evidence of notability per WP:ANYBIO #3. Jfire (talk) 05:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep DNB entry and others. Lightburst (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Defense Travel System

Defense Travel System (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 definitely exists, but is it notable? Been tagged since 2010, with discussions on the talk page since 2008. Natg 19 (talk) 07:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Business, Software, and United States of America. Natg 19 (talk) 07:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: PROMO for a reservation/booking software used by the military. Coverage is simply where to find the site, on other military websites. Oaktree b (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  Deletion isn't cleanup, just needs a typical copyedit. Widefox; talk 14:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Didn't take long to find secondary sources:[1], [2], [3]. PianoDan (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  None of these sources provide SIGCOV of this system, and are more about potential replacements, which seem to have been canceled. Natg 19 (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  Agree those three sources are about (not) replacing it, but there's more sources... Widefox; talk 14:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep many sources exist easily passing WP:GNG. e.g. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], (primary) [9], (replacement) [10] (replacement, primary) [11], (replacement) [12] system details here [13]. Anything more than a quick search would find better ones. Widefox; talk 14:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Unlikely to be fixed. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Here another source from 17 years ago in the Washington Post. It may be notably bad, but it's notable. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Ukrainian-Polish conflict in Volhynia

Ukrainian-Polish conflict in Volhynia (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:FORK of Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia. Any Polish-Ukrainian conflict in Volhynia was caused by the genocidal action of the OUN-UPA against the Polish population and took place in parallel. The "clashes" mentioned in the article were attempts by Polish villages to defend themselves against UPA units.

The article hardly quotes any sources. Some of the wording is misleading: "The Polish organised underground was re-established after the German occupation of Western Ukraine, but its armed formations, as a real force, emerged only in the first half of 1943. The organisation and activities of the Polish underground with their armed formations was one of the reasons for the creation of the UPA." In fact, the UPA partisans (which later transformed into the UPA) were formed as early as October 1942; they took up armed actions in early February 1943. At that point there were no Polish units in Volhynia; these were only formed as self-defence formations against UPA attacks.

He does not propose a merger, because everything of value in the article is already in the article on massacres. Marcelus (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The article about the massacres doesn't mention the organisation of the Polish self defense or their battles with the UPA Olek Novy (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Searching "self-defence" or "self-defense" within the article gives 23 results, most in relation to their attempts to prevent OUN-UPA massacres (wouldn't call it "battles"). Marcelus (talk) 08:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

It does this. But doesen't mention all of their engagements with the UPA. The Article barely mentions the Blue Police Olek Novy (talk) 13:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Why would it mention Blue Police if there was no Blue Police in Volhynia? It was only limited to General Government in its 1939 borders. Marcelus (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

There were auxiliary police units in Volhynia take example: Schutzmannschaft Battalion 202 Olek Novy (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I came into a conclusion that the article can be deleted. Overall i can just add some engagements to the article about the MAssacres on Poles. Olek Novy (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

So please post your vote if you may Marcelus (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Poland, and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

As written, POVFORK. Incorrect pl wiki which is about pl:Polska samoobrona na Wołyniu Polish self-defence structure (ditto for ru, uk and cs: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11822456). That (Polish self-defence) is likely notable, but the focus is wrong with our article, as the nom correctly notes. Maybe this could be rewritten. Maybe @Dreamcatcher25 would like to comment? I am leaning delete now due to POVFORK issues. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't notice wrong interwiki before, removed it now, I think that's uncontroversial Marcelus (talk) 09:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I think we have consensus here? Even author of the article agrees it should be deleted, I see no reason for further relists Marcelus (talk) 10:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. While the discussion gave evidence of ample sourcing concerning the sackings, the consensus position is that it failed to suggest that the the personnel moves were associated with the counteroffensive. Lacking that comment thread ran afoul of WP:SYNTH. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

List of Ukrainian officials dismissed during the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive

List of Ukrainian officials dismissed during the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive (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)

Should this article be deleted? It is similar to List of Russian generals killed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which was once AfDed. It was kept on the basis that there were reliable sources discussing the phenomenon of many Russian generals dying during the invasion. Here are some of them, you can see they indeed discuss the general topic by reading their titles [14] [15] [16] [17].

About this article though I haven't found such types of general sources, they all discuss individual cases of dismissals and do not connect them nor associate them to the failed counteroffensive. See for example these articles [18] [19], they discuss the collective dismissal of six commanders but explain they are rather due to corruption rather than anything related to the counteroffensive and do not mention previous dismissals. In the absence of sources like the ones I described it becomes apparent this article is a WP:SYNTH mash-up, possibly with the so far unverifiable point of view of arguing that failures in the counteroffensive led to dismissals of officers.

By the way, Russian-language sources don't discuss this as a phenomenon either. I made some Google searches and it was mostly about Zaluzhnyi's possible dismissal. Ukrainian-language sources also don't discuss this. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - I can see the utility of this list. Certainly a matter of ongoing news coverage. Useful compilation. Carrite (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Can you then cite an article titled something like "Ukraine has dismissed many military officers during/due to the counteroffensive"? Such articles would exist if it was a matter of ongoing news coverage. What we have so far is a mix of sources talking about dismissals that happened to take place during the counteroffensive, excluding any dissmissals that happened before or after it, without sources making a connection between these specific dismissals and the counteroffensive, this connection is made by this list's author instead. This is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Zelenskiy ramps up anti-corruption drive as 15 Ukrainian officials exit Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Article isn't titled List of Ukrainian officials dismissed during anti-corruption measures. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Worse, article is from months before the counteroffensive, so completely unrelated and actually evidence for the "delete" side, showing that sackings happen all the time and the ones during the counteroffensive are in no way exceptional. Fram (talk) 09:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - I can see the utility of this list too. A matter of ongoing news coverage. [20][21][22] As for Ukrainian official sources, WP:MANDY applies here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Russian sources don't treat this specific topic either. The first source you linked is Zaluzhnyi's dismissal. That is most definitively not during the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive.

The other two sources don't talk about the topic itself of dissmissals during the counteroffensive. I will show the titles of the articles I mentioned above that helped the list of killed Russian generals be kept to show the kind of source that I think should be brought here. How the Russian officer elite has been decimated in Ukraine — here are the generals and top commanders killed in action. Which Russian generals have been killed? The key military commanders Putin has lost in the invasion of Ukraine. These Top Russian Commanders Have Been Killed So Far, According to Ukraine. Russian generals face peril as Ukraine invasion intensfies. These actually talk about the topic itself, rather than say X general died at X date for us to synthezise into a list. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as WP:OR (WP:SYNTH), implying that the dismissals have anything to do with the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive instead of being a normal group of unrelated changes. E.g. the source for the first entry[23] doesn't discuss the counteroffensive, but on the other hand makes it clear that such dismissals had happened often before this as well. Unless sources are provided which treat this combination (sackings / counteroffensive) as a real related notable phenomenon, we shouldn't be the first to suggest such a connection. Fram (talk) 09:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
• Delete None of the 12 sources currently in the article make a connection between the dismissals and a wider pattern in regards to the counteroffensive. In fact, on the contrary, one of the sources, instead of the counteroffensive, mentions the "several scandals related to the procurement of equipment and supplies for Ukrainian soldiers" in regards to the defense ministry. Until we find sufficient RS's to make this connection from the dismissals to the counteroffensive, this is OR. Even if we do find sufficient sources, I am not convinced that it can't be covered in the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive article itself. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• Merge with 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. I think we can deal this within the article 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. Many media dealt the problem with changing officials so often in Ukraine, so it can be described in the article.

Wendylove (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete like others above have said, there's nothing that shows a connection between dismissals and the counteroffensive. The Reuters article about six deputy defence minsters explicitly points out that "such moves are common after a new minister's appointment." Without anything to show a clear link between the dismissals and the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive they're just concurrent events and WP:SYNTH. Shaws username . talk . 20:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: per args above. In addition, I don't think this has utility for readers under WP:CLN. I dont see any good merge or redirect target, delete seems to only option.  // Timothy :: talk  03:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

23 January 2024 Russian strikes on Ukraine

23 January 2024 Russian strikes on 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)

It's enough, for two years we have not created pages for these individual mass waves of attacks against Ukraine and kept them instead at Russian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure (2022–present). This standard was first broken with 29 December 2023 Russian strikes on Ukraine, I proposed its merger however it had been the largest of such kind of waves and most people opposed the proposal, fair enough. Then 2 January 2024 Russian strikes on Ukraine was created, unlike the earlier this one was a regular wave and its article remains very short, I've proposed its merger and for now enjoys widespread support. And now this article was created. At Russian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure (2022–present)#Timeline you can see how there have been several dozens of these types of attacks, just look at the see also section of this article, we cannot and should not give articles to each of these attacks, much less after two years since they started. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOTNEWS. We cannot have an article for each single day of a war, unless this particular day was somehow special and was discussed in academic sources, rather than in regular news reports. - Altenmann >talk 02:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Delete - As noted by Altenmann (talk · contribs), WP:NOTNEWS. Unless there is something particularly notable about a specific wave of attacks, it makes much more sense to include it in the Russian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure (2022–present) pages where it has appropriate context. This also avoids repeating the same contextual information across multiple pages, making it easier to maintain and prevent vandalism. Shazback (talk) 04:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Keep – The article, as well as the aforementioned previos ones, was created shortly after the attack had happened to show all the details and to bring civilized world's attention to continuing russian war crimes and atrocities towards Ukraine. Articles may be transferred in the general page but only with all of the vital information kept in there. The main preference is still the detailed information.

ThunderGit (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Note that ThunderGit is not extended-confirmed and cannot make edits or take part in internal project discussions (including AfD) about Russia-Ukraine war due to WP:RUSUKR. They were already alerted about this before. Mellk (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: per WP:NOTNEWS, impossible to maintain every day war reports in Wikipedia. CSMention269 (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per NOTNEWS. Carrite (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎ and the M49 telescope page changed to a redirect. Owen× ☎ 12:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

M49 Spotting Scope

M49 Spotting Scope (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 alredy a page called M49 telescope about the same topic Changeworld1984 (talk) 08:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete M49 telescope instead since it is a stub and this is the official name of the instrument. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

  Reject- M49 Spotting Scope is the offical name and article has been expanded. Changeworld1984 (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: The M49 Spotting Scope is the proper name. M49 telescope is incorrect, the other name it goes by is the M49 Observation Telescope. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 17:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Alfred Jansa

Alfred Jansa (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)

Although I could find some mentions, I couldn't find enough to show he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

• Strong keep. I am puzzled by this nomination, as this is not really an obscure figure and a quick search should give several interesting hits. In English we have this short entry from the House of Austrian History on the "Jansa Plan", Austria's pre-Anschluss defensive strategy in case of a German invasion. Also focused on defense against Germany we have this MA thesis from McGill University, which also devotes a lot of space to Jansa. Minor coverage of Jansa's postwar role can be found here. Unfortunately my knowledge of German (or the lack of it, to be more precise) does not allow me to dig too deep, but there definitely are sources available in that language. These are his memoirs, preceded by a 16 page introduction by the editor, Peter Broucek, which definitely counts and should be useful. A doctoral dissertation about him was written in 1990 at the University of Vienna: Johann Hafner, "Feldmarschalleutnant Alfred Jansa Edler von Tannenau". There's also a short bio by Ludwig Jedlicka: "Alfred Jansa 1884-1963", in Neue Österreichische Biographie, volume XIX, 1976, pp. 77-87. A section of this history of the Austrian general staff is also devoted to Jansa. Here is an article on the Jansa Plan in Die Presse. I am sure someone who is fluent in German can come up with a lot more. Ostalgia (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. Neue Österreichische Biographie, among others, is a very promising source. Geschichte (talk) 08:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Subject is notable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly notable. Easily meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 10:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Adrian Everett

Adrian Everett (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)

BLP of a subject of doubtful notability, created by a now-blocked user. Someone may see a glimmer of notability here I’ve overlooked. Mccapra (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Military, and United Kingdom. Mccapra (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - [24] and [25] are borderline for me. There is some decent coverage, but a huge chunk of both are direct quotes from the subject. The rest of the sourcing appears WP:ROUTINE or not directly related to the subject. I cannot find much else myself doing a WP:BEFORE given the commonness of the name (see [26]). Thus, I'm leaning towards deletion. —Sirdog (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as the sources are Routine. BoraVoro (talk) 07:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. No penalty against a future article that is adequately sourced being written in Draft space and submitted to WP:AFC Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Triton-1

Triton-1 (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 structure does not comply with MOS, it has no source, notability is questioned, or it could be Hoax. Vitaium (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Engineering, Technology, Transportation, Azerbaijan, and Russia. Vitaium (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
• I don't think the submarine itself is a hoax (https://ar.culture.ru/en/subject/triton-1m, ru:Подводные лодки проекта 907 «Тритон-1М»), but it may not meet WP:GNG and the article content is dubious. PaulT2022 (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Delete per WP:TNT without prejudice to being re-created in the spirit of Glazerr's proposal below. The submarine is real, but the current stub doesn't adequately describe it and isn't directly supported by the referenced source or sources mentioned here. PaulT2022 (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I think a better solution would be to move the article to Triton Swimmer Delivery Vehicle or Triton Diver Mobility Vehicle, and expand the scope to include Triton-1m and Triton-2. There's no question as to the existence of Triton-1, and most of this article is verifiable anyways: [27]http://www.hisutton.com/Triton-1.html [28]https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/907.htm Glazerr (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• delete Single source, thoroughly confused. There are ruwiki pages
  • ru:Подводные лодки проекта 907 «Тритон-1М»
  • ru:Подводные лодки проекта 908 «Тритон-2»

Possibly Triton-1 also makes sense, per sources found by Glazerr. - Altenmann >talk 00:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Trulan A. Eyre

Trulan A. Eyre (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 reads live a curriculum vitae with only one primary cite from 2007, doesn’t meet WP:GNG. Article has been heavily edited including text on post 2007 events by User:Trueyre, a single purpose account (possibly the subject matter themselves based on the similarity to the subject's name) without adding any cites. Kemeryty (talk) 04:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

This article was edited by myself, Trulan Eyre user name trueyre, because I found numerous errors from whomever originally posted it. The basis is from the National Guard General Officer biographies as you can see listed at the bottom of the article. I merely cleaned up the original with more accurate information. I hope you will leave it on here as what is on here now is absolutely accurate, and I am frequently asked to provide a biography, and I point them to this Wikipedia Article. Thank you. Trueyre (talk) 05:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:ITSUSEFUL WP:MERCY Brachy08 _(Talk) 05:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Delete. No sources found. Brachy08 _(Talk) 05:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 06:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Plenty of references available. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Reads like a resume, no independent sourcing found for this person. [29] is about all I see, which is trivial coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Prince Inigo of Urach

Prince Inigo of Urach (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)

Doesn't seem to be notable, the only claim to fame is being a grandchild of a person, who was considered to the position of Lithuanian king, but never actually became one. Marcelus (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany and Lithuania. Marcelus (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Royalty and nobility. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Numerous self-proclaimed pretenders have articles dedicated to them. Royals that never ruled anything also have articles dedicated to them, e.g. Iniga von Thurn und Taxis.--+JMJ+ (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I hope you know a bunch of non-notable modern day nobles have articles about them, and they never ruled anything in their lives. Also, his grandfather was officially elected as the King, whether you like it or not. If anything, this is more worth keeping than the other articles about people of noble/royal blood who are part of deposed dynasties. YT DomDaBomb20 (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Wilhelm was elected, but this election was reversed after a few months by the same body. It was also never accepted by Germany, which controlled Lithuania at the time. His grandson never laid claim to the throne, nor did any major political party or group ever do so. Inigo is a completely private person. Marcelus (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Don't use the existence of another article to prove that this article should remain. See WP:WAX for more info. ''Flux55'' (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Delete Just because other "self-proclaimed pretenders have articles dedicated to them" is not an argument to keep this specific article WP:ALLORNOTHING. And I would also be in favor of deleting Iniga von Thurn und Taxis for what it's worth.

As for his grandfather being elected king or not that doesn't make Inigo notable as notability is not inherited WP:INHERIT. D1551D3N7 (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Update - the Iniga von Thurn und Taxis article has been deleted for lack of notability for what it's worth. D1551D3N7 (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Passes WP:GNG with Lithuanian RS: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. --StellarHalo (talk) 12:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any comment on the sources found by StellarHalo?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for the verification of new sources provided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per StellarHalo. Mach61 (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep notability according to StellarHalo. Axisstroke (talk) 10:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per stellar DarmaniLink (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Per StellarHalo. Azarctic (talk) 10:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Laurie Buckhout

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

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

Non-notable congressional candidate with zero in-depth national news coverage. Does not meet notability requirements of WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Getting mentioned in a few articles by local outlets shouldn't be enough to get a Wikipedia page. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Women, Military, North Carolina, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• Delete We go through this every few years. WP:POLITICIAN: Just being an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability. In other words: get elected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - Don Davis (North Carolina politician) was sworn in a year ago this month as the elected representative from that district. She is announcing her 2025 run for that same office. Go to her personal website linked in the naxbox and click on her website link. — Maile (talk) 03:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that I did not write this article as a promotional piece. I am not a Republican. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

OK. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and change my Delete to Comment. — Maile (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

From my view, WP:PROMOTION can be unrelated to the intention of an editor, and can instead happen when a subject engages in promotional activities without significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. When sources tend to be brief, based on quotes or interviews, a non-independent profile and a campaign website, deletion also seems supported by the second part of the WP:N guideline, as WP:NOTPROMO (and WP:DEL-REASON#14). Beccaynr (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep I’m a newbie here. I went to her Wikipedia page to find information that was not available elsewhere on the net to help inform me about the primary election. What’s currently on this Wikipedia page seems fact-based and is very helpful to me. FACTSMATTER01 (talk)< — Preceding unsigned comment added by FACTSMATTER01 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't really see how that's relevant. Per WP:NPOL, being a candidate in an election is not enough for a Wikipedia page. Wikipedia is not a search engine, it's an encyclopedia of notable people and events. If Buckhout loses this election, I doubt this page will be useful to anyone. People who want to learn about Buckhout can simply read her campaign website. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

NPOL does not exclude any one. It just grants 'presumed notability' to elected politicians at state level and above, that's all.Djflem (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

You're right, the fact that she clearly fails NPOL doesn't necessarily mean she's not notable. The reason she's not notable is because she fails WP:GNG due to lack of in-depth coverage from national outlets. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

That was a clear when the nomination was made, so mention of NPOL is redundant.Djflem (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

\ Djflem (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• Just passing by, but Wikipedia is not a collection of random facts. Subjects must meet a certain set of notability criteria before an article can be made about them. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep due to notability as a female military officer, not as a political candidate. I've added more sources to the article regarding her role as the first Chief of the U.S. Army's Electronic Warfare Division. Here are some more sources (mostly from the late 2000s, so not in connection with political campaigning) detailing her role as Chief of the Electronic Warfare Division, and as a military consultant, that have not yet been added to the article: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't really see the difference between these sources and the ones that were already cited on the article. It's just more minor, non-national outlets, and few of these sources give in-depth coverage of Buckhout specifically. Leading a minor branch of the Army doesn't automatically make you notable. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - there does not appear to be support for notability in significant coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources; coverage tends to be brief and often based on quotes or interviews. Beccaynr (talk) 02:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge for coverage as US Army Officer (as above) or to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in North Carolina where she is already mentioned. Djflem (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

  The sources above seem to offer limited support for notability, including because of often being based on quotes or interviews without secondary coverage of Buckhout, or otherwise lacking independence or indications of reliability:

  • The Feb. 25, 2009 Associated Press/NBC News source, "Army updates plans for electronic warfare" is not about Buckhout; it includes two quotes from her as "chief of the Army's electronic warfare division in Washington, D.C."
  • The Aug 2, 2015 Defense News source, "Electronic Warfare: What US Army Can Learn From Ukraine" is not about Buckhout; it includes quotes from her as a "former chief of the US Army's electronic warfare division, now CEO of the Corvus Group"
  • The Mar 2009 Defense Visual Information Distribution Service source, "Technology, Threats Accelerate Army Focus on Ground Electronic Warfare" appears to be a public domain press release, and is not about Buckhout; there are quotes from her as "chief of the Army's Electronic Warfare Division in the Operations, Readiness and Mobilization Directorate." This source states, "In 2006, Buckhout stood up the Army's Electronic Warfare Division"
  • The Oct 10, 2017 Defense News source, "Eyeing Russia, lawmakers aim to boost Army electronic warfare" is not about Buckhout, it includes quotes from her as "Former U.S. Army’s electronic warfare division chief [...] now with The Corvus Group"
  • The Feb 21, 2020 C4ISRNET source, "Getting the services on the same wavelength about electronic warfare" is not about Buckhout, it has quotes from her as "chief executive and president of the Corvus group and a retired Army colonel who specialized in electronic warfare".
  • The Feb. 23, 2007 defense-aerospace.com source "Army Upgrades Its Electronic Warfare Training" is a marked as a reprinted press release. It is not about Buckhout, but has quotes from her.
  • The Jan 30, 2018 National Defense Magazine source "Army Merging Electronic Warfare, Cyber Ops" is not about Buckhout, but has quotes from her as "retired Col. Laurie Moe Buckhout, who now serves as the president and CEO of the Corvus Group, a Virginia-based consulting firm"
  • The Feb 25/26 2009 Associated Press/Herald Tribune source, "Army boosts focus on electronic warfare" is a reprint of the AP/NBC News source listed above.
  • The James Madison University source "Military Science (Army ROTC) Alumni" is one of the schools Buckhout attended. This source offers a more specific date (June 2006) of her assignment as "Chief, Electronic Warfare Division, Army Operations, Readiness and Mobilization" than other sources, but is not independent support for notability.
  • The 'Federal News Network' source is probably not reliable based on the overall website, and the brief report mentions Buckhout with a quote.
  • SC Magazine is churnalism from the 2015 Defense News source; the overall appearance of this website is questionable.
  • The Feb 26 2009 Associated Press/Fox News source is a reprint of the AP/NBC and AP/Herald Tribune sources noted above.
  • The Jan 3 2007 UPI source, "U.S. Army trains troops for electronic war is not about Buckhout; she is quoted as "chief of the Army's Electronic Warfare Division" and this source restates what is reported in the Army Times.

  Beccaynr (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, per beccaynr's analysis. Agreed that the sources above are inadequate in significance and/or independence for GNG.

JoelleJay (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hammadid expedition to Tlemcen (1058)

Hammadid expedition to Tlemcen (1058) (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 think this article is a combination of embroidery and original research. The background section does not relate specifically to the topic and is in any case unclear in meaning. The substantive content of the article is the two sentences “ The Hammadids launched a campaign against the Ifrenids, seizing Tlemcen in the process. However, they opted not to retain control over the city and instead focused on consolidating their holdings in the eastern regions.” This carries three citations, of which two are offline but the third does not support the existence of a Hammadid expedition to Tlemcen in 1058. The aftermath section, like the background, is just generic padding. There is very little substance here, what there is is not supported by the accessible source, and a search for “hammadid tlemcen” and “tlemcen 1058” brings up nothing at all to support the existence of this expedition, never mind its notability Mccapra (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Algeria. Mccapra (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I forgot to add that source five provided by the creator is meant to support the statement “ The remaining Banu Ifran in Tlemcen were massacred by Yusuf ibn Tashfin” but it us actually a scholarly catalogue of beetles. Mccapra (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and History. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Delete. I thought this would be yet another passing mention somewhere being turned into a military history stub, but I can't even find any mention of this anywhere, even in passing. For the three cited sources: 1) Ibn Khaldun doesn't say this; 2) Ferchain isn't accessible but a Google snippet search ([43]) doesn't even find the date "1058" inside; and 3) a historical atlas (Lugan) is unlikely to mention an evidently minor event in any detail. A brief search of other books and articles yields nothing. No way this meets notability, even if it were accurate. R Prazeres (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion as a recently-restored article (redirect was reverted).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, per R Prazeres. -- asilvering (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 14:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Richards Heuer

Richards Heuer (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 heavily WP:REFBOMBed WP:FANCRUFT article on a CIA analyst. Of the 13 sources:
- 3 are non-RS (a paid obit on legacy.com, the webpage of a company called ctovision.com, an Amazon author page listing)
- 4 are publications written by the subject of the article itself
- 1 is WP:PRIMARY - a collection of released documents on a U.S. Government website
- The remaining 5 simply don't mention the subject of the article at all
A WP:BEFORE on newspapers.com and Google Books fails to find anything to redeem it. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Philosophy, Military, Psychology, California, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Keep I am satisfied from [44] that the subject is notable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: His top two books are highly cited, which verifies the statement that he's a "giant in the field of analysis" in the CIA Studies in Intelligence obit mentioned above (which is not WP:PRIMARY—it's a peer-reviewed academic journal), so he seems to be notable per WP:ACADEMIC#C1. I agree this barely passes notability guidelines, but remember that intelligence analysis is not a high-profile world! Biogeographist (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 14:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Palay Khan

Palay Khan (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)

Lacking a source and not very well-known. Historianfox (talk) 10:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Hits seem to be only about the film with the same name, nothing found for a person. Oaktree b (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Terrible article, but I should have thought that anyone who was deemed notable enough to have both a biopic and a 13-part biographical TV series made about them was notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. I've given the depictions a minor rewrite, and added a couple of sources on the 1986 film and 1990 TV series based on Palay Khan (just to prove that those depictions of him which allow him to qualify as 'notable' exist). I will admit that I am struggling to find a source on the man himself (best I've found so far was https://pashtunhistory.com/palay-shah-khosti/, but it seems a little bit too WP:SPS to cite in the article), but there might be some half-decent non-english sources out there. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 17:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per above arguments...Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per Necrothesp. Possibly notable. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Subject is notable. There are films (Indian and Pakistani), TV series, and novel based on his story.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

List of participants at the Battle of Badr

List of participants at the Battle of Badr (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)

unsourced mess of a list that admits it's incomplete. blow it up. ltbdl (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ltbdl (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Merge to Battle of Badr. A bit messy, but still not a good reason to delete the article. Plus the battle is already notable. Draftification can be an alternative based on what you gave. Brachy08 _(Talk) 01:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, Military, Islam, and Saudi Arabia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing of value in this article, just a whole lot of non-notable names, even the blue linked articles are very questionable. Ajf773 (talk) 09:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if it were possible for such a list to be reliably sourced (which it clearly isn't currently, and almost certainly never could be), there is nothing inherent in mere participation in a battle that would justify it under Wikipedia notability criteria. Were such lists permitted, we could potentially end up with monstrosities like a List of participants at the Battle of Stalingrad with entries running into the millions. Not what Wikipedia is for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
• Merge per Brachy0008. Shankargb (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• Merge, would be more useful to include in the battle of Badr page via a "participants" section or something like that rather then outright deletion. Noorullah (talk) 09:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  A question for those proposing a merge. What source are you suggesting should be cited? Even if a list of this length were to be appropriate (I contend that it isn't), we cannot add it without proper sourcing meeting WP:RS requirements. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  @AndyTheGrump Reply At the bottom of the article, there seems to be a cited list of the individuals who participated, so that could serve as a source if it complies with WP:RS. Noorullah (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Two references and neither reliable. References for history pages need to be from a scholarly literature. The page fails wp:n. RangersRus (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to discuss the merits of merging vs deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. I've got to agree with the main points stated above. Merely being in a battle doesn't merit a list article. Merging isn't appropriate, because there's nothing to merge: a reliable source, currently lacking, is required for each item to be merged. Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. I've also got to agree with the main points above, merely being in a battle doesn't give an individual any notability, it feels very WP:COOKIE to include every person, and as AndyTheGrump said, articles listing the participants at other battle would run into the millions. It would be little more than a database. Shaws username . talk . 00:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. No consensus established after multiple relistings. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeomanry Cavalry (disambiguation)

Yeomanry Cavalry (disambiguation) (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 page had been converted to a redirect to Yeomanry Cavalry until today, when I reverted it back to bring it to AfD. At its previous state, it was eligible for WP:G14; however, with the history of the page that I brough back in its current state, I was wondering what consensus would be on what to do with this. Redirecting to Yeomanry Cavalry seems to be an issue as that page is not a disambiguation page or serving a similar function. TartarTorte 19:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. TartarTorte 19:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• Keep as a set index page. Also: don't edit pages just so you can bring them to AfD. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  My bad. I was trying to follow the spirit of WP:BLAR, but did so incorrect. As it seems that in this instance, it would have been best to have just reverted it to the state it's currently in and left it without bringing it to AfD. I'll be sure to be better in the future about that. TartarTorte 15:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, even though it was a waste of everyone's time to drag its carcass here. Set indices and dab pages are not for partial matches. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep as a set index page.  // Timothy :: talk  13:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Per WP:SETINDEX, a set index is "a list of items of a specific type that share the same name" (bolding mine), for example HMS Audacious. Canterbury Yeomanry Cavalry and Rutland Yeomanry Cavalry do not. You don't see 1st Armored Division (United States), 2nd Armored Division (United States), 3rd Armored Division (United States), etc. in Armored Division (disambiguation). Clarityfiend (talk) 15:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. Discussion about a possible merger can continue on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 00:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

French ship Bordelais

French ship Bordelais (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)

Include the two ships to Bordelais. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Transportation, and France. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Standard set index page per WP:SHIPMOS. Even if included in Bordelais a SI page would still be needed Lyndaship (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• Keep As a set index page. WP:SHIPMOS: If there has been more than one ship with the same name, create a ship index page for the generic ship name. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• A merge with Bordelais doesn't hurt. In fact, for readers who search for Bordelais, it would save them a click. Geschichte (talk) 09:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion on policies and guidelines as they pertain to keeping this an independent SIA or merging it to a broader page would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per Lyndaship and Hawkeye. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:SHIPMOS. Mjroots (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Syntagmatarchis. BusterD (talk) 03:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Antisyntagmatarchis

Antisyntagmatarchis (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)

Seems to be just a translation Chidgk1 (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Greece. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. In Greek letters, the name is Αντισυνταγματάρχης. The Greek article el:Αντισυνταγματάρχης doesn't have any references either, but if you google Αντισυνταγματάρχης through Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, you might be able to find some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• Weak keep - poorly sourced but we normally have article about military ranks. Llajwa (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. My preference would be to merge, but there are enough articles on military ranks around the world to justify this one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• Merge to lieutenant colonel or Hellenic Army. This article has zero sources, and we don't have evidence that the topic is materially distinct from the English translation (so Greek sources discussing it won't be helpful unless they actually address the difference from a lieutenant colonel in English).

JoelleJay (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

To Lieutenant colonel. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to Lieutenant colonel (see below): The namesake on Greek Wikipedia is linked with lieutenant colonel, so the real question is if this "term" merits a standalone article. The article is and has been unsourced for more than 14 years, so there is nothing to merge. I've looked for some sources, but most are glossaries or other kinds of sources with very superficial coverage (WP:NOTDICTIONARY). A merger should be relevant, when some editor finds WP:RS "now". If so, please ping me. Aintabli (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to Syntagmatarchis. Sorry to muddy the waters here with a new merge target, but I noticed that other Hellenic Army ranks redirect to a Modern Use section like Strategos#Modern use. Obviously there's no ancient version of lieutenant colonel, but there is Syntagmatarchis (colonel). -- asilvering (talk) 04:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More input is clearly necessary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• Merge to Syntagmatarchis or, if that isn't appropriate, Hellenic Army. Ben Azura (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Syntagmatarchis: I believe any unsourced content should not be merged, but in order to help form consensus, I don't mind changing the redirect target. Aintabli (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of casualties of the Smolensk air disaster. Redirect as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Artur Ziętek

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

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

No evidence of this meeting WP:NBIO. Non-notable Polish airforce officer who died in a high-profile crash. Pl Wikipedia article is a bit longer but also has nothing suggesting notability except some obituaries. A posthumous award of Order of Polonia Restituta, likely mass-awarded to everyone who died in said tragic event (~90 people) is not enough. WP:ATD-R would be to redirect this to List of casualties of the Smolensk air disaster. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Poland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Delete and Redirect: Indeed I can find only obituaries, which alone aren't enough to establish notability. NicolausPrime (talk) 04:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep It looks like there are some sources around link. 50.237.173.2 (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

What I see is WP:OBIT and please be precise, what soruces? WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete seems to fail GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 13:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of casualties of the Smolensk air disaster. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Jarosław Florczak

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

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

No evidence of this meeting WP:NBIO. Non-notable security functionary (lt. col) who died in a high-profile crash. Pl Wikipedia article is a bit longer but also has nothing suggesting notability (coverage is at obituary level at best). A posthumous award of Order of Polonia Restituta, likely mass-awarded to everyone who died in said tragic event (~90 people) is not enough. WP:ATD-R would be to redirect this to List of casualties of the Smolensk air disaster. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Poland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Delete and Redirect: Not notable because the only few sources are obituaries. NicolausPrime (talk) 04:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of casualties of the Smolensk air disaster. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Paweł Janeczek

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

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

No evidence of this meeting WP:NBIO. Non-notable minor security functionary who died in a high-profile crash. Pl Wikipedia article is a bit longer but also has nothing suggesting notability. A posthumous award of Order of Polonia Restituta, likely mass-awarded to everyone who died in said tragic event (~90 people) is not enough. WP:ATD-R would be to redirect this to List of casualties of the Smolensk air disaster. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Delete and Redirect: Not notable because the only few sources are obituaries. NicolausPrime (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Frank Ronzio

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Frank Ronzio
• Articles for deletion/Frank Ronzio (2nd nomination)

Frank Ronzio (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 subject still fails WP:NACTOR and the WP:GNG same as last time this was at AfD. A WP:BEFORE yielded no significant coverage, just brief mentions in books. Although the American Air Museum source appears to be new, it is apparently a user-generated source written by an author with no expertise. The actor has been deceased for over thirty years and more coverage is unlikely to come up. The Night Watch (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 15:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Delete: I agree with the nominator's assessment of the American Air Museum source and I have been unable to find anything beyond a passing credit or phrase about his role as Litmus. Officer-turned-actor sounds like an interesting life story but we've got to wait for others to write about it before there's enough for a Wikipedia article. — Bilorv (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. SIGCOV and GNG guidelines met. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Blue Alliance

Blue Alliance (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 couldn't establish that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; I hope we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Enough available to pass WP:NONPROFIT. Some examples: two pages of discussion in Attitudes Aren't Free: A Call to Action (pp145-147), mentioned in ABC News article (2012), recognition from the USAF itself, Gay graduates stepping out at Air Force (2011), Gay students savor military's openness (2012). Clean up, yes, deletion, unnecessary. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - I agree that the notibility standards for nonprofits have been low in other articles, but that’s not an argument to ignore policy in this case. There are no sources justifying notability. Llajwa (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep (weak): Meets GNG: [45], [46] meet SIGCOV from IRS. might be more, didn't look because these two are enough for me. WP:NONPROFIT just points to GNG, "The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization." Agree that if kept, cleanup is needed.  // Timothy :: talk  03:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. The arguments have been brief, and there doesn't seem an obvious consensus from the discussion. I have given drive-by IP comments less weight. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Akora Khattak

Battle of Akora Khattak (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 seems to be some confusion (among sources), as to the date, location, and even name of this battle. So is it one battle or synthases of more than one action?

Also all of the sources seem to be single-line mentions, (at least the ones that I can check). Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Sikhism, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• KEEP This article has many solid Book references that are all working properly. I checked today to confirm it. Added an additional archived reference to the article today...Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Most sources are unreliable and some are hard to verify. Couple sources have one-liners about the battle except for one. The date is disputed among sources. I do not see any useful contribution of this article.RangersRus (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• Keep A significant battle and has good coverage in reliable sources. Referencing can be improved but the sources already present in the article are also enough to have this article on Wikipedia. Muneebll (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 06:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Nothing of value in this article. Even the sources are questionable which do not sgree with one another.23.25.75.145 (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Niche article and heavy reliance on snippets and questionable citations. The information here is so poorly-framed I wouldn't know what to do with it as-is.208.184.20.115 (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• Keep sufficient WP:RS exist detailing the battle, and most of the references cited in the article do provide full view.

I don't know on which basis some editors here can call it poorly sourced. One just has to visit the article to verify that the sources are good enough to merit a stand-alone article. Sutyarashi (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Note for closer: Please take a closer look at the !votes of IPs, because they are very clearly sockpuppets based on their similar arguments and the fact that they have made edit only at this AfD thread. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

• DELETE The refs provided are only short passing mentions and I don’t see anything more substantial. There isn't much in detail about the battle then a sentence or two. 63.86.0.91 (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Not every individual fight mentioned somewhere in a book needs its own article especially when there is not enough information in multiple articles. Major Conflicts in sources in every aspect and most are just unreliable. 173.167.254.157 (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: article creator was CU-blocked not long after creating this article. -- asilvering (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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