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

Battle of Pangal

Battle of Pangal (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)

Contested BLAR so bringing it to AfD with a proposal for a consensus redirect to Deccani–Vijayanagar_wars#Qutb_Shahi-Vijayanagara_conflicts. I don't see sufficient WP:SIGCOV of this event in reliable, independent sources for a standalone page per WP:GNG. The sources are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS (paragraph or less in full-length books) of this battle. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Telangana. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: The only two sources that provide a few lines (not more than five to even consider a redirect) of coverage are dubious, as one was authored by an Indian civil servant of the British administration and first published in 1900, which falls under WP:RAJ, while the other was first published in 1927. This may explain why the event has not received attention in recent academic works. I would not support the proposal for a redirect unless there is sufficient coverage from reliable sources. Garuda ^Talk! 17:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: For this source, which has some coverage but is still regarded as dubious, see this discussion. Garuda ^Talk! 19:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Armed Forces Insurance

Armed Forces Insurance (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 did wp before, but was not able to locate reliable sources meeting NCORP. Ready to withdraw the nomination if the reliable sources are found and added NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Military, Companies, and Kansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Arms trade

Arms trade (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)

Before people go nuts about this, I am AfDing the disambiguation page at this location and not the concept of "arms trade". It seems like the clear and obvious primary topic for a redirect is arms industry as arms trafficking/weapon smuggling is usually called... well, that. Alternatively, if the page is independently notable, WP:REDLINK applies and it should be opened up to article creation. Either way, a DAB page does not belong here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Technology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, we should redirect Arms trade->Arms industry, Arms industry is clearly the primary topic. according to pageviews I think putting Small arms trade and arms trafficking in the hat notes for arms industry would suffice, although moving the existing page to Arms trade (disambiguation), and having that in the hatnotes would be fine too. I'm not sure this even needs an AFD, you could probably just withdraw the AFD and make the change! JeffUK 09:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  Personally I am not sure this needs to exist at all. Small arms trade falls under WP:PTM. Arms trafficking can be in a hatnote. That's why I went for AfD rather than moving the page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Demeter Ritter von Tuschinski

Demeter Ritter von Tuschinski (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’m sending these two articles to AfD upon the suggestion of another user who requested assistance in doing so. For the moment, I have no particular opinion on the matter, though I may vote as the discussion progresses. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page:

Constantin Ritter von Tuschinski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Delete. Article on a minor local official, clearly does not meet WP:GNG. Created by a relative as part of a family history project and including much WP:OR. See for example (at the foot of the article): Demeter von Tuschinski's great-grandson Alexander Tuschinski (*1988 in Stuttgart) is a film director and historian. As of 2024, he is researching Demeter von Tuschinski's life and plans to publish a scholarly biography of him. In November 2023, he gave his first public lecture on his research at Bukowina-Institut an der Universität Augsburg, in which he presented the first comprehensive biographical overview of his great-grandfather to date.[citation needed]. Axad12 (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• As the author, I object the deletion, as I am certain notability is firmly established in both cases:

Demeter Ritter von Tuschinski was the highest-ranking Romanian civil servant (edited: English terminology corrected), in interwar Romanian Cernauti, and he was constantly present in public sources until 1940. The Wikipedia article names only some of the approx. 2000 press articles that exist. If he is not considered notable, then, by that logic, no state officials and public figures of equal or lower ranks from interwar Cernauti/Bukovina or other major Romanian cities/regions would be notable enough for Wikipedia. By extension, most people named here would have to be deleted: [Category:20th-century_Romanian_judges] - which cannot be the goal of Wikipedia.

Constantin Ritter von Tuschinski, for example, in the 1960s-80s published in both of the two most major, widely circulated and heavily curated German-language Romanian cultural magazines of the era, Volk und Kultur and Neue Literatur. Romanian press wrote about his plays. If none of that is "notable" it would mean that suddenly, many authors who published there and shaped the German-language Romanian 1960s-80s cultural scene would be stripped of their notability, which would (seemingly at random) suddenly exclude a huge part of majorly published Romanian German-language culture from Wikipedia. I plan at some point to create pages for those magazines and other authors who published there - and I am convinced of their notability, particularly given the strict regulations for publishing in Socialist Romania. I'm currently researching the magazine "Volk und Kultur" and its archive for the second volume of Constantin's collected works.

I am Demeter Ritter von Tuschinski's great-grandson, which I always openly stated when creating the articles. Both Demeter and Constantin passed away before I was born. I created and researched both articles over several months, and I am currently getting my PhD in history at University Innsbruck about Demeter Ritter von Tuschinski's biography. I wrote the articles in a neutral and academic way, careful to not write a subjective view, but only to quote from sources, much like I write my PhD dissertation. I intend to expand both in the future. Except for Axad12 (who recently added a COI tag and told me he would nominate my account to be blocked if I ever wrote about a relative on Wikipedia again), I heard no objections to the articles, and the objections he voiced on his talk page refer to me being related, not on the content of the article. I believe articles shall be judged independently of who the author is. Every part in the articles is supported by a footnote - the one part Axad12 quotes with [citation needed] originally had a reference to an academic presentation I had held, that another editor removed, and which I plan to replace with a link to a current press article after the deletion discussion. ATuschinski (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Just a brief note to correct what appears to be a misunderstanding on the part of the editor above. I did not tell him that I would nominate [his] account to be blocked if [he] ever wrote about a relative on Wikipedia again. What I have said to him, several times now, is that editors with a COI should use the COI edit request process rather than editing the relevant articles directly, and that if he continues to edit such articles directly (including articles about himself and his film projects) after being advised not to do so on multiple occasions then I shall report the matter to either WP:COIN or WP:ANI, in which case it would be reasonable to assume that his account may be blocked.

However, I do thank the editor above for confirming that much of the work on both of his two family history articles are based on his own original research (i.e. WP:OR).

I would also note that notability, from Wikipedia's standpoint, is based on specific criteria and not on a family member's subjective opinion on whether his family members were 'notable'. Axad12 (talk) 07:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Dear Axad12, perhaps it's a misunderstanding, since I am confident you use the WP:OR argument incorrectly here: The extend of my original research can be seen in the footnotes of the articles - mostly links to digitized newspapers, and many weeks of browsing through them online, in addition to newspapers and books available at libraries. I link to the online sources wherever possible. If that were not allowed on Wikipedia, nobody could add or edit anything that requires research in sources that are available online or at libraries. Only at very few spots, I refer to archival files, including their signature (if available) for people curious to check them out. By now, if prefered by the community, I could even replace all of the few archival footnotes with ones to a book I recently published, which is currently added to major libraries. Constantin's bibliography that I made you aware of, which you likely have in mind saying "based on his original research", I was able to put together after months of research in Cluj library's public holdings and by browsing Romanian pre-1984 journals. Anyone can read them at respective libraries; I identified and mention each one in a footnote. Again, if that were against Wikipedia's standards, nobody could add anything gathered from browsing books or journals to this encyclopedia. ATuschinski (talk) 09:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Material in archival files is not published material.

Generally speaking it would be better here if you were to make an argument for the subjects fulfilling the notability criteria.

The purpose of these articles is clearly hagiographical and to promote your family history project (just as all of your edits are to promote yourself in some way or other). Axad12 (talk) 10:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, as per previous promotional attempts by an account who was presumably your paid publicist, as noted in detail here [1]. Axad12 (talk) 10:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Dear Axad12, I argued for the notability in my response, and I believe I never use "a family menber's subjective opinion", but argue with notability criteria within a framework of Romanian history and society. By now, it is for other wikipedia editors to decide about notability and quality of the articles in this discussion. This discussion is about the two articles, their content and notability - not about the author and his presumed motives as you now start speculating about. We both made our points, now others can decide.

Since you now made a wrong presumption and a false claim about me personally, I have to respond to those, but then I will drop the topic: I never employed a publicist on Wikipedia, I find your presumption offensive, and I ask you to stay on topic of notability and quality of the articles you asked to be deleted - about which you already made statments. Your claim "all of your edits are to promote yourself in some way or other" is false and offensive to the work I have put into Wikipedia for many years in several languages: I have made many accurate edits to topics close to my interests, in various languages, never "promotional" in tone and nature, and I feel strongly the term does not apply: I don't see how, e.g., neutrally worded thorough academic research on my great-grandfather, a civil servant in pre-WW2 Romania, promotes me, a German film director born in 1988. Or me digitizing and adding a photo of Servais Le Roy and Talma I found in a publication? Or adding museums in Vienna that display artifacts of Maximilian I of Mexico? Or expanding and correcting the site of the Order of the Crown of Romania greatly with accurate details? In the latter case, I got initially interested as I had a very clear 1930s photo of Demeter Ritter von Tuschinski wearing the medal that I felt could expand the page well - then, I discovered the page on Wikipedia being very incomplete and partially incorrect, and then I started expanding it with true historical information for a while, so now, it is much more complete and accurate - nothing "promotional" could come from that work for me. Or even edits to the page about me, which I carefully expanded with facts and sources in a neutral, non-promotional tone to make it more accurate, always disclosing my identity, etc.

On your talk page, there is a long discussion you had about me and my presumed motives where you, e.g., argued for deletion of my full, true legal name, date of birth etc. from the Wikipedia site about me which you then deleted - anyone interested in discussing or learning backgrounds could continue there. This discussion here, I believe, shall discuss quality and notability of the two articles you proposed for deletion, which is independent of presumptions about the author, and both you and I already made our points.

For the sake of making this discussion not overlong, I hereby respectfully withdraw from our conversation here, thank you for making your points on notability and quality, I made my points, now others can discuss and I will respond where appropriate. ATuschinski (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Please note: WP:BLUDGEON. Axad12 (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Demeter was, perhaps, the highest-ranked civil servant in Cernauti. He was not the highest-ranked state official: after all, the city had a mayor, representatives in parliament, a prefect, and so on. Let’s be precise. Biruitorul ^Talk 08:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Dear Biruitorul, thanks for the correction, please excuse my mixup in terminology - I did mean to say "civil servant", of course. I guess even though I am careful, that little slip in wording reveals I am not an English native speaker: I translated the German term "Staatsbeamter", that was named in the German-language source, which literally translates to "state official", but the correct translation is "civil servant" :-) I just did correct that terminology in the intro of the article, as well - in the body, I already wrote the correct term "civil servant". Thanks for bringing it to attention. ATuschinski (talk) 09:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, Military, and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Not sure what the details are of the court he served as the president of are, but generally appellate court judges would be considering notable under WP:JUDGE as state/province wide officials (appellate courts are usually at a state/province level). There may be an argument Demeter meets WP:NPOL depending on how the court functioned. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Ancillary weapon

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

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

Fails WP:DICDEF with no evidence it passes notability criteria. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Technology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG. Does not warrant a stand alone article for explanation of a phrase (WP:NOT and WP:NOTDICTIONARY). QEnigma (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - The term is well accepted and frequently used. But it doesn't need an article. A dictionary definition is enough. Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per White Christmas. Bearian (talk) 05:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Biometric Consortium

Biometric Consortium (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 program. Per a WP:BEFORE], there is no WP:SIGCOV, only routine coverage of conference announcements. Longhornsg (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Dorsey Road Warehouse

Dorsey Road Warehouse (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 logistics warehouse for the National Security Agency. The NSA likely has hundreds of such warehouses to store equipment, most of which do not pass WP:GNG, like this one. Longhornsg (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Conquest of Ajmer

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

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

Yet another MILHIST article that spun more around event's background and aftermath rather than describing the event itself. Fails WP:MILNG and WP:SIGCOV as sources measly refer this particular event as a capture of Ajmer alongwith Nagaur, could not find Seige Siege of Ajmer in the sources. Garuda ^Talk! 16:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: I agree with your observations. The article has been in contention for deletion before too. Xoocit (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete — (soft) — per nominator and above. That said, there do seem to be a number of sources listed in the “the battle” section… if someone could spin-out more information regarding the actual siege from these (or any other) I might be inclined to re-consider my position or at least rescind my “delete” position. But as-written, it’s a delete, for me. There is enough contention via multiple issues that I am rescinding my “delete” opinion (and altering it to Comment). MWFwiki (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  Note that the initial contributor has a history of WP:CITEBOMB and just citing irrelevant and unreliable sources [2][3][4]; From the analysis of the sources, it is evident that they contain barely a few lines of passing mention, often limited to a single line:

  • [5]: This barely has one line of passing mention.
  • [6]: Page needed; however, upon searching through snippets, nothing relevant could be found.
  • [7]: Irrelevant to this conflict; nothing about the event was found. The initial contributor has a history of citing random sources without thoroughly reviewing them.
  • [8]: Same case here, a one liner "Mahmud Khalji of Malwa defeats Gajadhar".
  • [9]: Lastly, here as well, a line of passing mention. Garuda ^Talk! 16:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, India, and Rajasthan.
• Delete: Per nomination. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: The article was moved from Conquest of Ajmer to Seige of Ajmer at Special:Diff/1261104784, which I would have thought the nominator would have been aware of, so the argument that the sources refer to "capture of Ajmer" and not "Seige of Ajmer" and therefore it fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:MILNG on that basis is not a good argument. If anything they make an argument for moving the page back to the old name or similar. Pinging @Xoocit, @MWFwiki and Ratnahastin as you may not have been aware of the page move. TarnishedPath^talk 11:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  Titles containing non-neutral terms like "Conquest" should be used with caution, as per MOS:MILNAME. Additionally, this event has only a few passing mentions and lacks sufficient independent, significant coverage to justify a standalone article. Garuda ^Talk! 16:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: This article seems to place more emphasis on the event's context and aftermath with very limited information about the actual 'Conquest of Ajmer', maintaining the title given instead, it describes the aftermath, particularly the construction of a mosque and a shrine, as well as the role of Khwaja Niamatullah and Makhdum Husain. I see only passing reference to the siege, without any citation, it does not provide the level of depth expected for WP:MILNG to pass.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 10:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  Delete: I have moved this page from "Conquest of Ajmer" to "Siege of Ajmer" in the past on the basis of its lead title being misleading. A conquest is usually understood as the absorption of a territory into the state for a static amount of time, if not permanently. However, in this case it was recaptured by Kumbha within a few days. Aside from that, this article has multiple issues as noted by editors above, like WP:SIGCOV and WP:MILNG. Some cherry-picking of sources has also been done with the battle section, which was more of a siege, actually lacking a sufficient amount of source. Rawn3012 (talk) 11:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:SIGCOV RangersRus (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Blunt instrument

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

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

Fails WP:DICDEF, being mostly a definition of what a "blunt instrument" is and some examples. Wikipedia is not a phrasebook and therefore unless something can be found to demonstrate its standalone notability, it probably shouldn't remain as an article. While I have a feeling blunt weapon may be notable, nothing in particular from this article is salvageable so it would have to be created from scratch anyway. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, History, Military, and Technology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Since the term "blunt instrument" can have multiple uses (in espionage, for example), this article makes little sense. Leaning toward Delete at this time. Intothatdarkness 16:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment I don’t think this is a DICDEF fail - it’s not about the phrase blunt instrument, it’s just about the weapon in the context of criminology. It’s just a stub. And if the title is the issue that can be changed, so I don’t think the reasons above are good for deletion (though I think blunt instrument is actually the better title). This is not at all a TNT case. Will look for sources later - I would guess there is enough in criminology sources to pass GNG and I don’t know where else we’d cover this so it’s not a NOPAGE situation. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so... that just makes it a criminology term. Same difference. Wikipedia is also not a legal handbook either, so WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies. There has to be multiple RS discussing blunt instruments as they relate to law, and right now the only source is not about blunt instruments, but blunt force trauma, which can be caused by things other than blunt instruments such as transportation fatalities. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

By that logic everything is a DICDEF violation. Yes, which is why I said I would look for sources later, and why I did not vote yet. WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply: this is not data, a plot summary, lyrics, or lists of software updates (the examples it gives!), or anything analogous to that. Stubs are not a violation of INDISCRIMINATE. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep, or at least not delete. This information should exist somewhere onwiki, though I'm not sure that it is best served as its own page. A merge would be better, but I can't think of a target.

Some sources I found quickly, I can look for more if you want:

• Weapon Use in Korean Homicide: Differences Between Homicides Involving Sharp and Blunt Instruments
• Blunt Force Injuries: Blunt Instrument Blows, Fall from a Height, Collisions
• BLUNT HEAD TRAUMA: COMPARISON OF VARIOUS WEAPONS WITH INTRACRANIAL INJURY AND NEUROLOGIC OUTCOME
• Patterns of non-firearm homicide

Information on the considerations of attacks resulting from this kind of weapon is encyclopedic. No opposition to a merge or appropriate redirect later PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

These seem to indicate to me a merge to blunt trauma would be best, maybe creating an "in crime" or "inflicted by weapons" section because it extends to other accidents besides criminal acts. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Would be fine by me, though it may fit awkwardly there, unsure. I just feel strongly that information about this concept should go... somewhere. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Majeerteen-Hobyo Wars

Majeerteen-Hobyo Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I could not find any sources that talk about the war between the Majerteen Sultanate and the Hobyo Sultanate. This article also has not cited any sources. It seems to be a hoax. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Somalia. Skynxnex (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

This war is real and it isn’t a hoax. In the majeerteen sultanates wiki page it talks about this war in the hobyo section. Jahahaiaia (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ONotAQAAIAAJ&q=hobyo+sultanate&dq=hobyo+sultanate&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjfw9eRnaWKAxUzWkEAHdH0FJwQ6AF6BAgEEAM#hobyo%20sultanate Jahahaiaia (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Look at Page 17. Jahahaiaia (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Dude i got it wrong by autocorrect and now it’s not letting me delete the comment.. Jahahaiaia (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: OR mess, lacks citations. It does not meet criterias to warrant a standalone article, fails WP:MILNG. Garuda ^Talk! 19:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: This conflict appears to have occurred as a series of skirmishes over several years. However, there is a lack of specific mentions or detailed articles about these events available online, and the article itself does not provide any substantial evidence or sources. While some sources make passing references ([10]), others seem to be user-generated content without editorial oversight ([11]), failing to meet WP:RS, WP:IS and WP:V. Consequently, this article does not satisfy the notability criteria in WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. QEnigma (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete may have been a series of skirmishes, but nothing notable, and the article itself has all the hallmarks of AI-generation. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Devarakonda

AfDs for this article:

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

Battle of Devarakonda (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)

Deleted due to lack of sourcing, this article was refunded to draftspace after an editor said sources were available and then moved to mainspace. However, the newly supplied sources still do not support notabilty. Each of the three sources included here ([12], [13], [14] has a single paragraph or less out of a full-length book on this battle. These sources verify that this battle took place, but is not WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG. The only other source I found in my WP:BEFORE is a post on a blog of questionable reliability. (It says it allows "anyone with a reasonable grounding in the Dharmic Indian civilization to air their views.") If there's a valid redirect target I'm open to it but I don't know what it would be. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Telangana. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: I can find sufficient significant coverage (SIGCOV) in all three sources. The first source provides more than a page of coverage (pages 33–34), not just a paragraph. The second source also offers nearly a full page of coverage. While the third source is not fully accessible, its preview suggests at least two pages dedicated to this event. These sources should be sufficient to establish notability, and there was no need to consider a non-reliable source like Pragyata in the first place. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  The first source contains 336 words on this battle. The second source contains 211 words. These are paragraph-length passages; one of them is a literal paragraph. (The third source, which you said you can't see, has only two references visible in search to the battle, so it's quite a leap to assume from those snippets that it's SIGCOV.) The article itself is 411 words long, which suggests some degree of WP:SYNTH or WP:OR in managing to find more to say than its source material. That indicates this battle is insufficiently notable for a standalone page per WP:NOPAGE. Again, open to a redirect if there's a war or campaign this battle was part of, but I don't know what that would be. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  Okay. The article body has 339 words (lead and infobox should not be taken into account). And, as far as I know, that is not what SYNTH and OR state. Even if it exceeds the sources in word count a little bit, I don't see a problem here. It is not necessary that content words in a Wikipedia article should match exactly with its sources. Coming to the third source, from what I can see, there is a certain pattern on pages 53–54 that follows the other two sources in terms of describing this event, so it is safe to assume that it contains at least 2 pages, or roughly 3 pages, of coverage. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 13:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Banj brdo

Battle of Banj brdo (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)

While the fighting in this area during 1994 and 1995 was significant, and the two-volume CIA history of the wars in the former Yugoslavia contains significant coverage of those later events, this fighting (if in fact it happened at all) in 1993 is not covered at all in that source. If it happened, then it could be covered by a couple of sentences in the Majevica front (1992-1995) article. As things stand, I can't even find proof in reliable sources that it happened. Thirty years after the fact, if this had significant coverage in reliable sources, is would be apparent. It certainly doesn't appear to. Not notable in and of itself. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Another poorly sourced page by the same User. Mztourist (talk) 11:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per Mztourist. Mccapra (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per above

  Noah ^💬 22:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:MILNG, does not have significant independent coverage to warrant a standalone article. Garuda ^Talk! 23:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Roman command structure during First Mithridatic War

Roman command structure during First Mithridatic War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not WP:GNG, specifically – contra the First Mithridatic War itself – there not being significant coverage in reliable sources of Roman command structure at this specific period. Heavily reliant on unsourced interpretations of primary sources (WP:PRIMARY; WP:OR). See also previous discussion at WP:CGR. Ifly6 (talk) 05:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Both major authors of the page have been notified. Ifly6 (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete. The topic is not notable enough, and the writing is very confusing and even off-topic. There is nothing to save. The article has bugged me for several years now; I've tried to reread several times, in order to try to understand what is it about, but left confused every time. T8612 (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete as WP:OR. Furius (talk) 10:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete This is one step above gibberish, and certainly has the stamp of OR about it. Notability of the topic is also questionable (not the war itself, but this odd construct lifted from the war). Intothatdarkness 14:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT. We're not a place to post an essay, or original research, or a book review, or whatever this is. Bearian (talk) 05:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: An unwarranted WP:SPLIT of First Mithridatic War. Fails notability to warrant a standalone article. Garuda ^Talk! 10:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Full of WP:OR and does not even pretend to be an encyclopaedic article, certainly not aimed at a general audience; at best it would be a research paper, at worst a blog post. Constantine ✍ 17:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Lea Gabrielle

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

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

Fails WP:NPERSON. Current references are all either primary sources or trivial mentions. Without any significant achievements I do not think that a naval aviation career is inherently notable (in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Women_United_States_Naval_Aviators other subjects achieved individual milestones in the history of the field or pass NPERSON outside of the profession), nor is being a news correspondent (does not appear to have reported significant stories or been referenced as notable in the field; ie, fails the WP:JOURNALIST subsection of NPERSON). Arguably secondary converage of appointment to US government position ([15]) but as I cannot find coverage of any accomplishments in said position I do not think this makes her notable independently of Global Engagement Center. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Military, and Virginia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep I have done some tidying up and removed sourcing to her LinkedIn account. The top three sources are:[16],[17],[18]. She has coverage that is sustained across multiple careers, from her time at Fox, NBC, in the U.S. State Department, and now Mount Snow (though that later one is quite recent). DaffodilOcean (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Passes WP:GNG. In addition to references DaffodilOcean mentioned above there’s also this one in the article [19] Nnev66 (talk) 03:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Sufficient coverage by reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Jaireeodell (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Jajnagar Expedition of Firoz Shah Tughlaq

Jajnagar Expedition of Firoz Shah Tughlaq (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)

Full of OR and SYNTH mess, cited with poor sources that were being dealt with. At best a hoax fan PoV that should not have been in the mainspace at the first place. Garudam ^Talk! 22:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Bangladesh, India, Odisha, and West Bengal. Garudam ^Talk! 22:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Per nomination. Created by a prolific LTA that has a history of creating similar poorly sourced and pseudohistorical POV articles. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: This article has been edited by multiple non-sock edits since it's creation by a banned editor. If the article isn't eligible for speedy deletion under G5 then the argument that it was created by a LTA is not a policy based argument. In regards that the article is a WP:OR and WP:SYNTH mess, no argument has been provided why the article is beyond redemption and therefore WP:TNT is necessary. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. TarnishedPath^talk 11:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'm still trying to deal with the unreliable sources that were being cited by the initial contributor, it is quite disorganised but here is why it is full of OR mess:

  [20]: He was succeeded by Bhanudeva III during whose reign (1352-1378) Orissa began to show sign of decay. is certainly not coherent with "Firuz Shah Tughlaq advanced his forces all the way to Puri, where King Bhanudeva III bravely confronted the sultan's army. However, after a brief engagement, Bhanudeva III was defeated and subsequently fled to the forests for sanctuary." as written in the article. A blatant OR from the IC as usual. Also looking through the sources it looks like they do not have more than a line of a coverage hence the issue of SIGCOV remains. AfD is not a cleanup but that doesn not mean OR, SYNTH and SIGCOV should be disregarded, this is WP:FALLACY. Garuda ^Talk! 15:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  Um no it's not WP:FALLACY because I didn't deny it's got WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. TarnishedPath^talk 01:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. The reliable sources are all WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS (example), or they don't even mention this episode, so there's a lot of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR going on to build out this episode into a full article. (One source explicitly downplays this episode: "Feroz went back Delhi via Jajnagar. (Jajpur). Nothing is known about his desecration of the triad and plunder of the temple.") The only source to provide anything approaching WP:SIGCOV is published by Vij Books, which, if not an actual vanity press appears to have very low standards for publishing. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

List of fictional doomsday devices

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Planet killer
• Articles for deletion/Planet killer 2

List of fictional doomsday devices (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)

Almost entirely an indiscriminate list, fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTPLOT. There is a sentence or two of cited content, but this can be added to doomsday device#in fiction if necessary, which already has a much more organized prose treatment of the subject. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Military. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR, WP:NOTPLOT, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and ultimately failing WP:NLIST. However, this looks to be so much work down the drain. I should hope the authors use this in the fandom wiki where I would expect to see it. I will say this Wired source is at least a partial source, just not very significant. Conyo14 (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
• Merge those few reliable sources at the very end of this article to Doomsday device, and nothing else. As described in the nom and the preceding comment, the rest of the list fails multiple categories of WP:NOT and the notability guidelines. Rorshacma (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep or merge (amended, see discussion below. Daranios (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)) Looking for sources, American Science Fiction and the Cold War, p. 43-45+, has significant coverage. Like the Wired article it concentrates on American fiction, but as the vast majority of the content also concentrates on that, that should not be a problem with regard to notability. Science Fact and Science Fiction, p. 292 has a brief paragraph on the topic. Most importantly, Science Fiction and Futurism, p. 66-70+, has a multipage chapter on the topic with the majority of it being dedicated to depictions in fiction. So I see WP:LISTN as fullfilled after all, all other problems can be solved be normal editing rather than deletion. Specifically, WP:INDISCRIMINATE by sticking to examples appearing in secondary sources like those listed. The trimming is hopefully done after checking if the individual entries are treated in secondary sources. Daranios (talk) 11:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yet another relevant secondary source is the Weapons article of the Science Fiction Encyclopedia, which contains a pragraph on doomsday devices, and even more on planet-killing weapons. Daranios (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  If you are passionate about saving the article, then I am willing to reconsider the AfD if a full rewrite is conducted. But nobody has cared to fix it for 20 years, so the argument that it "could" be solved by editing rings hollow. If the AfD results in the article being fixed, then it would be successful as well, but in this state it likely shouldn't exist. It may be easier to let this article go and start fresh with a prose article at Doomsday devices in fiction. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the suggestion, but I've let myself be drafted into working on articles which were not on my agenda quite a lot recently, after simply expressing my opinion in AfDs (Tralfamadore...). So, no, I do not plan to also take on this one myself, I have a backlog of previous stuff. If you are passionate about not liking the current state of the article, you are likewise invited to fix it. That's the course of action suggested by policy in a case where secondary sources establishing notability have been found, not deletion. Granted, 17 years is a long time, but "Nobody's working on it" is still an argument to avoid in a deletion discussion. (And there's of course the underlying problem that nominating an article for deletion is comparatively easy, but fixing things is not, and neither would be creating a more decent article from scratch.) Daranios (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  That it takes significant effort to fix bad content is, I would think, precisely the point. Why keep the bad content around on the off chance that somebody will fix it somewhere down the line (even when nobody has done so after many years) when we have the perfectly cromulent alternative option of retaining the good content elsewhere while removing the bad content? Somebody could, perhaps, recreate a good version of this in the future—though frankly, the likelihood of this (or basically any other List of X in fiction article, for that matter) ever becoming good content seems very slim—but the current version would be no help whatsoever. Better to keep the good content and remove the bad content, no? TompaDompa (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  Keeping the good content within this list with the help of the found (and ideally other) secondary sources and removing bad content in this list is totally fine with me. Daranios (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  What good content would that be—could you exemplify? Taking a look at a sample of the entries, I see a collection of WP:RAWDATA about fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  At least the parts referenced to secondary sources (possibly with the exception of Palumbo; I cannot access it so I don't know if there is commentary); Star Trek's The Doomsday Machine (as appearing in secondary sources); Ender's Game's Molecular Disruption Device (attested here); Dr. Strangelove; the Death Star, Babylon Five's Planet Killers, possibly the other entries from the Wired article and possible more with regard to the planet killer discussion below. Unfortunately, Google Books no longer gives me access to the relevant pages from Science Fiction and Futurism. Checking the other secondary sources again there is significantly less overlap between what they cover and what we have here than I expected. So the resolution of the discussion below notwithstanding, it is little enough that I am (in the interest of consensus-building, as Shooterwalker would say) no longer opposed to merging such content to Doomsday device#in fiction until such time as someone would like to use the found sources to expand again. Daranios (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  To clarify, do you think the what we have on the list dealing with e.g. The Doomsday Machine is currently good content, or has the potential to be good content? TompaDompa (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  I believe the listed content would have a place in a good article, if that answers the question. I do not think it is complete as "good content", some parts obviously lacking references, and more commentary globally and for individual entries is needed. All of which can be achieved through normal editing using the listed secondary sources (and possibly others). Daranios (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  Right. That sounds like what I would call having the potential to be good content rather than currently being good content. "This should probably be covered, but not like this", basically. I do agree on the need for global commentary in particular; list formats are unfortunately very ill-suited for that purpose. TompaDompa (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  In my opinion, in contrast, an introductory paragraph to a list article can be a perfectly well-suited place for global commentary, other WP:PAGEDECIDE considerations notwithstanding. Daranios (talk) 12:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe in theory (and certainly for other kinds of list articles), but I don't think I've ever seen that work in practice for these types of X in fiction articles while striking an appropriate balance between overarching analysis and providing examples—every instance I can recall has either messed up that balance completely with excessive examples or presented a low number of examples in list format that would have been better integrated into the prose (or in some cases, a kind of mix of both issues). There's a reason specialized encyclopedias—at least in the area of science fiction, where I'm most active—like The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia, The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy, and Science Fiction Literature through History: An Encyclopedia don't use such a format. TompaDompa (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Merge partially per Rorshacma. Once you clean-up the unreliable list, there are only a few sentences in reliable secondary literature. Re-creating this as doomsday devices in fiction is premature, and it's best to work on this at the main article until there is evidence we can write a significant and reliable article of its own. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Things are more complicated than they seemed first, as there actually have been 2 deletion discussion before this one, referenced on the talk page. This was when this page was still named Planet killer, and the name was changed after a move discussion with rather little participation. Planet killer still redirects here, so both "doomsday devices" and "planet killers" (and the synonyms planet-wrecker, planet-buster, planet-smasher as attested by Brave New Words - The Oxford Dictionary of Science Fiction) fall within the scope of this article. I know notability is not the only concern here, but the last such discussion, which strangely was named Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planet killer 2, does feature additional secondary sources. In the end I am not sure it is a good idea to put these two terms together, as I feel there is a difference. (Like, a planet-killer functions a doomsday device for a one-planet civilization, but no longer for a space opera multi-planet society, where it "only" becomes a superweapon, a third related term.) But that explains why a number of examples here feel unexpected for the more narrow definition of doomsday device as it appears in e.g. Dr. Strangelove. So how to deal with that aspect? Daranios (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  This is a typical kind of problem when articles are written "backwards", i.e. with content coming first and sources later (or not at all, as the case may be). The only way to solve it is to do what should have been done in the first place: survey the relevant literature and treat the topic(s) as the sources do. One might call it a WP:SYNTH problem, but given the lack of sources cited in the article I think it's probably just plain old WP:Original research of the "this looks like a reasonable topic/scope to me" variety. Editors eyeballing scopes like that, particularly in the form of media WP:ANALYSIS, used to be rather common in the early days of Wikipedia and we are still cleaning up the messes that left behind (compare e.g. WP:Articles for deletion/Discrimination against superheroes). I think the best option right now is to merge whatever content is properly sourced to wherever it properly belongs and then leaving it to whoever happens to be so inclined to create articles on the topics of Doomsday devices in fiction, Planet killers in fiction, and so on based strictly on sources on those topics at some point in the future—a fresh start, if you will. TompaDompa (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to Doomsday device#In fiction. I would say merge, but what little properly-sourced content there currently is here (at the end of the article—some of the entries in the list itself are cited to Wikipedia articles either in reference tags as with Stargate or inline as with Dr. Strangelove) isn't really a good fit as it is more about terminology and non-fiction writing on the subject. The sources, on the other hand, may be of use. The above-mentioned scope issues amply demonstrate that coverage of the topic (or topics, as the case may be) needs to be based on sources on the overarching topic (as indeed it always must) rather than by the approach that has been taken here.
  More broadly, I have yet to see an article of this variety that would not be much better in prose format. Compiling examples of X in fiction quickly turns into an indiscriminate accumulation of WP:RAWDATA (the 2008 essay WP:CARGO explains rather well how and why this is a problem for articles like this), or in other words, basically an exercise in stamp collecting. Writing prose articles on such topics, on the other hand, allows for high-quality content with appropriately-sourced overarching analysis and proper adherence to policies such as WP:PROPORTION.
  I thus find the WP:LISTN argument wholly unpersuasive; we don't have to choose a list format for notable topics. As an example: List of rainy days in London arguably meets our notability criteria for lists, but Climate of London is obviously the correct way to handle the topic. The argument instead needs to be a WP:PAGEDECIDE one, namely that covering the topic as a list is preferable to covering it in prose format, or else that covering it across two articles (i.e. a list in addition to a prose article) is preferable to covering it in a single one (only a prose article). This is pretty much never the case for articles on fiction. As I have said before (at WP:Articles for deletion/Stars and planetary systems in fiction), compiling raw data about works of fiction is not Wikipedia's purpose, nor is analysing the same (it is, however, TV Tropes' and Wikia/Fandom's purpose). Compiling analysis about works of fiction made by others is, however. The latter approach has resulted in several WP:Featured articles: Mars in fiction, Venus in fiction, and Sun in fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Doomsday device#In fiction per TompaDompa. There's some decent coverage of the concept, but the current article and the way the topic would be covered violates how Wikipedia functions, and is better off left to the parent article in a much shorter, more compact, more well-cited area. Unopposed to a Merge should that be considered a better outcome. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

2024 Al-Mustariha massacre

2024 Al-Mustariha massacre (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 massacre or air strike. One of the source (ANHA - Hawar News Agency) is linked to the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). ANHA is forbidden in Turkey because it's seen as a propaganda tool of SDF, therefore I have no idea about what exactly is written in the source. Other source (arabi21.com) don't talk about Al-Mustariha or even a kind of massacre commited by Turkish air force. I'm not sure can we create an artice about every air strike and can we name every air strike as a massacre. I found no reliable sources online. I think it fails WP:RS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If there is a real massacre, this page can be used: List of massacres during the Syrian civil war.--Sabri76'^talk 14:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment:

Comment As mentioned above, neither of the two listed sources describe the event in question. However, there are other sites online that do, such as here and here, but no major news agency has reported on it yet. --Leviavery (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned below, SOHR just make news of anouncement of SDF controlled Raqqa Governorate. Turkey has made lots of air strikes and some of them might kill some civillians but I mean we need more reliable sources that air strike is a massacre. SDF/PYD controlled news agency ANFA try to create a perception that Turkish Air Force deliberately bombed a civillian house for order to ensure the emigration of the people. We're sure there were many airstrike and some soldiers and civillians are killer but we're not sure is this a massacre or an ordinary air strike. SDF-PYD don't want loose their areas because they want autonomy and independence if it's possible in the future. Therefore they create news like that for gaining inrernational support against Türkey. Therefore wikipedians should be suspicious about these type of claims and need more reliable sources. We have to ask what makes this event (air strike) special if we consider last bloody 10 years of Syrian Civil War?--Sabri76'^talk 20:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree ANHA shouldn’t be used, it’s clearly not reliable considering the context, but SOHR is a reliable source. As other sources have started to emerge confirming the details, I don’t see a need to delete the article. Please keep WP:NPOV in mind, as both Turkish and Kurdish aligned sources have bias. Flalf^Talk 01:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Aleppo | Turkish drone kills 11 SDF fighters in eastern countryside - The Syrian Observatory For Human Rights

SOHR itself calls them to be fighters, though this article calls it massacre of civilians by the Turkish Armed Forces. AscendencyXXIV (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete:
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, Syria, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Support The whole article of such an important event only has two references, thus the mentioned sources lack overall credibility - there's no report from any respectable/well-known media agency. AscendencyXXIV (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Slight Keep SOHR is a reliable source, and while the coverage is limited as of now, this leads me to believe that there is more to come. Flalf^Talk 17:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

SOHR shared the anouncement of SDF-led Raqqa Governorate and it says "191 air strikes". If this is a massacre, how about other 190 air strikes and dead bodies? If it's a systematic air strike massacre, why there is no other news and why big city centres are not bombed? SOHR also says totally 20 civilians killed in air strikes besides 32 SDF soldiers and 3 Assad regime soldiers. Also massacre is so disputed concept in this civil war. For example in here civillians died besides soldiers and I've searched key word of "massacre". I've found that just SDF (YPG) asserted Turkey committed a massacre against civilians and the source belongs to SOHR. I think using only the SOHR source prevents the objectivity of the event. The event in the article is the killing of soldiers and civilians as a result of air strikes and I think that it is not necessary to open a separate article since it is not a sui generis event in this civil war.--Sabri76'^talk 17:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep (weak). Coverage in SOHR ([21]) and New Arab ([22]). Suggest a requested move for the title. Longhornsg (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep. The massacre occurred today, and we have two reliable sources reporting on it as mentioned above. It's also worth noting that the Arabic divisions of Sky News and The Independent have both covered this attack. Biases within Kurdish sources such as ANHA should be taken into account, but most Kurdish sources I've seen source SOHR instead of SDF. Jebiguess (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

 Question: All news are based on SOHR and SOHR based on Raqqa Governorate. No photographs or witnesses in the news. Even if we accept this event is real but still no one has answered these questions yet: Does the bombing of a building make it noteworthy? Should an article be created for it or should it be simply moved to page List of massacres during the Syrian civil war ? In List of massacres page, Turkey wasn't mentioned. Is this a new and only massacre from at the beginng of the Syria war? If 190 air strike kills SDF-YPG soldiers and one of them kills civillians, is this make a massacre? Are you sure that it is a massacre instead of an air strike? For examle we have this article: April 2017 Turkish airstrikes in Syria and Iraq. Also civillians killed in those air strikes. This article was created to show that Turkey only carries out air strike to massacre innocent civilians. However, this airstrike is only one of 191 airstrikes against the SDF-YPG, and how neutral is it to open an article for a building that was bombed intentionally or accidentally? Israel also killed 6 civillians in this air strike (2024 Homs airstrikes) Why this is not a massacre?--Sabri76'^talk 06:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• • Offer: (My offer is valid provided that there is a consensus that the article should remain) I've found Turkish-based English news and I can see the photos. Therefore, I propose to change the title of the article as 2024 Turkish airstrikes in Syria, because Turkey does not want an autonomous or independent PKK-affiliated structure to be established in northern Syria and therefore, it is highly possible that operations will continue and air strikes will increase. Thus, this article will be open to develop for further actions.--Sabri76'^talk 06:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Update: My opinion is this is not a noteworthy event for creating an article unlike air strikes in Syria. If you want to see real massacre about Turkish Air Force, Roboski massacre is most popular one and this was widely discussed in the Turkish media and parliament for many years. If you have a consensus about this event is a massacre you can mention in here: List of massacres during the Syrian civil war. However this article but there are no sources to prove that it was a massacre. However massive air strikes are a fact.--Sabri76'^talk 10:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

      I don’t understand your opposition. I’m not anti-Turkish or trying to push a narrative, as a Wikipedian I’m simply trying to encourage documentation of facts. There is now a significant amount of independent coverage (particularly in Arab language sources) and even of a Turkish source (as you provided). [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Perhaps there should additionally be made an article about the more general air strikes, but this refers to a specific event.

      
      

      Also as I mentioned earlier, please keep WP:NPOV in mind. I understand you are Turkish, but you should remember to consider your own biases, especially in sanctioned areas such as around Kurdish related topics. Flalf^Talk 16:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  @AscendencyXXIV:, @Flalf:, @Braganza: I'm convinced about reality of the event and this discussion can be closed with a consensus, but I still have doubts about the definition of massacre, I think it's about moving the title and it's not the topic of here. I do not have any bias on issues related to Kurds, but I see a lot of systematic Turkophobia in the English Wikipedia, which is supposed to be unbiased. There is such a high level of prejudice against Turks on wikipedia that I don't participate in discussions because of the risk of being labeled as a nationalist even by writing a sentence, but calling the Turkish Air Force as mass murderer because one of the 191 bombings led to the death of innocents doesn't sound neutral at all. If the creator of the article hadn't used the word "massacre" but said "air strike", this article wouldn't have attracted my attention. I have heard on the news that they've been carrying out air strikes in recent days, but massacre is a very big claim. I would like to invite you to the page to get your views on the topic related to the title, I apologize for keeping this place busy.--Sabri76'^talk 17:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Support Closing Discussion I think it’s fair to say the title is more in dispute than the article itself and that the deletion discussion should be closed in favor of a Request for Move.

  Flalf^Talk 18:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  support closure Braganza (talk) 07:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  • • I've changed my mind because I still cannot find the location of Al-Mustariha. News says it's in the west of Ayn Issa and north of Raqqa, but we just see Mustariha village in Idlib. Before this news, there's no information about Al-Mustariha village in Ayn Issa. This is so weird. Almost I've found a Mustariha in Hama Governorate. Why I cannot find the location? If we cannot find the location, could we presume that event took place in Ayn Issa Province? I've used VPN and I've seen ANHA news which says 12 dead people but SOHR says 11 civillians. I think one of 12 killed people is SDF-YPG soldier but ANHA didn't mention it because of ideological background of news agency. SOHR used the Raqqa Governorate's statement and it's normal ı think. However, it is very interesting why all the websites reporting the news only stick to the SOHR announcement and don't clarify the location of the village. There are photos, but not finding any information about the location of the village or any information about the village before the incident makes me suspicious. A few small opposition websites in Turkey, known to be close to the HDP, reported this news. No medium or large-scale news website, also known internationally, mentioned this incident. I am contributing to this page for the first time, but I would like to ask if this is normal. The level of media freedom in Turkey may be low and therefore some news may be ignored, but if it is serious enough to be covered, I ask why other large or medium-sized news agencies didn't report it. Don't misunderstand me, I don't claim bombings and deaths didn't occur.--Sabri76'^talk 23:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• Move to 2024 Turkish airstrikes in Syria as proposed by Sabri76. This justifies a split from Turkish involvement in the Syrian civil war which currently only has #2024 Rojava offensive pointing to 2024 Manbij offensive and 2024 Kobani offensive. The more detailed reports seem to be mainly from Kurdish-related sources; this includes both Iraq-based and Syria-based Kurdish-related groups, which are not a monolithic group, so the biases are to some degree mixed; western mainstream media tend to be focussed on 'our' interests, but do have some reports. Overall, 2024 Turkish airstrikes in Syria is very likely WP:NOTABLE. Last week or so: 9 Dec 2024 Rudaw Media Network; 10 Dec 2024 Rojava Information Center; 16 Dec 2024 The New York Times; pre-fall-of-Assad: 24 Oct 2024 The Guardian; kurdistan24.net '1 month ago' Kurdistan 24. Boud (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep and rename. This seems sufficiently significant, but needs to be renamed/moved and possibly expanded, for example, as suggested by Boud just above.My very best wishes (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Pantodapoi

Pantodapoi (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)

Unreferenced stub gives a definition for "Pantodapoi" which appears to be original research as the main sources found online are product pages for "Pantodapoi Phalangite" miniatures made by a maker called "Xyston". Does not meet WP:GNG. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Toys, and Greece. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not expert enough with Greek military units to feel confident in voting, but I did check some typical reference sources, including Harper's Dictionary of Classical Antiquities and Pauly-Wissowa, neither of which has an entry for "pantodapoi". I also checked under "auxiles" or related headwords. A broad search of the classical materials at Perseus turned up the word with reference to a kind of sauce (perhaps I misunderstood) and in a couple of other places, but not with reference to soldiers. A Google search for "pantodapoi soldiers" turned up a set of circular-looking definitions, perhaps based on this article or wherever its definition came from in the first place.

I suspect that what has happened here is that the article's creator confused a description of some auxiliary soldiers with a name for their unit: pantodapoi phalangites means "miscellaneous soldiers (in a phalanx)", not "a particular type of soldiers (natives) making up a phalanx". But it would be nice to see if anyone with more expertise in Greek military history concurs with this. Not certain that the general notability guideline is what's relevant here; if the definition were correct, I think the topic would be notable. But if, as I believe, the article is the result of a misunderstanding, then it can be deleted as though it were a hoax (albeit an accidental one). P Aculeius (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Jhala Manna

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

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

This article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jhala Man Singh and recreated under a different title with sufficient differences that G4 speedy deletion was declined.

However, the recreated version still does not show that the subject passes WP:GNG or WP:NBIO.

• Most sources have one or a handful of passing or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the subject (A History of Rajasthan, A History of Mewar, Battle of Haldighati, Jhālā rājavaṃsa, Mewar Saga, Mewar & the Mughal Emperors, and Maharana Pratap: The Invincible Warrior.
• In addition to having trivial mentions, some sources are also considered of questionable reliability per WP:RAJ, such as Tod's Annals of Rajasthan
• One source is WP:SELFPUBLISH: Sacred Mysteries from vanity publisher by Notion Press.
• Chiefs and Leading Families in Rajputana has no mention of Jhala Man Singh/Man Singh Jhala/Jhala Bida/Jhala Manna/Jhala Sardar or any other configuration of his names.
• Another "source" is a poem.
• The final source is an e-commerce site.

No evidence of WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources is found in a WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Still not seeing notability, sources are as explained above, not much for showing notability. I still don't find any sources we can sue. Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article previously at AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Notable person. Mentioned in many sources. He played a significant role in the Battle of Haldighati. Lordo'Web (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We're now at a split opinion, so worth relisting in an attempt to garner further clarity on consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

DELOSYS

DELOSYS (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)

Declined G11. Mildly promotional article on a Slovak fire-control system. Article only includes one source, which appears to be primary, and reliable sources are clearly lacking. No evidence that this warrants a standalone article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Konštrukta – Defence, the producer of this system, as an AtD. Agree that it doesn't warrant a standalone article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Products. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Raids inside the Soviet Union during the Soviet–Afghan War

Raids inside the Soviet Union during the Soviet–Afghan War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

An unwarranted WP:SPLIT of the Soviet–Afghan War, clearly a Pov ridden article and glorification of measly notable Pakistani raids in Soviet Afghan. Garudam ^Talk! 00:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Russia, Ukraine, and United States of America. Garudam ^Talk! 00:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Its not a Split and these raids aren't "measley notable" in that it involved the forces of four different states infiltrating into the territory of a global superpower. Waleed (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: I think that the article is notable on its own. WP:SPLIT is justified for significant battles of the Soviet-Afghan war. Wikibear47 (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  This could be merged at best. Otherwise, I don't see a reason why this article should exist in the mainspace when the parent article itself does not cover this topic or lacks sources, even if it does. Garudam ^Talk! 19:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: pure violation of WP:SYNTH. The topic is not notable and the article itself appears to be pushing a POV. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep The article has standalone notability of its own established through significant coverage and a necessary split from Soviet-Afghan war article. Muneebll (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

  The topic is not even notable for its parent article and lacks citations, clearly it does not pass GNG & SIGCOV. Garudam ^Talk! 14:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: There are real signs of notoriety here. Furthermore the story must be told without fear of repercussions from Moscow. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  Genuine question, what do you mean by repercussions from Moscow? WP:LEGAL for more info. Conyo14 (talk) 08:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete – Per WP:GNG: The topic has not received significant coverage with the article appearing to push a POV. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: PoV pushing at best. found nothing notable in my WP:BEFORE.

  Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• Merge to Soviet–Afghan War. My very best wishes (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

List of wars involving South Korea

List of wars involving South Korea (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)

Propose redirecting List of wars involving South Korea to List of wars involving Korea#South Korea, just like List of wars involving Korea#North Korea. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wars involving North Korea (nominated by Cortador), which resulted in the same solution on 3 November 2024. NLeeuw (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, Korea, North Korea, and South Korea. NLeeuw (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Pinging other participants of previous discussion for follow-up: @Mikrobølgeovn, MolecularPilot, and My very best wishes:. NLeeuw (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

This outcome (the merger) was most unfortunate. Although Korea has been a divided country since the 1940s, editors seem adamant to treat it as a single country. We don't we give Sudan and South Sudan the same treatment, for good measure? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF Cortador (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Mikrobølgeovn has a point, but I think the comparison of Korea with Sudan and South Sudan does not work well. Below I've presented some thoughts on comparing Yemen and Korea, curious what editors think of that. NLeeuw (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment: One of the arguments used by nom of previous AfD was This also has precedent e.g. East and West Germany don't have separate pages for their wars, and neither do North and South Vietnam or North and South Yemen. The first half is true, but not the second: We've got List of wars involving North Yemen, List of wars involving South Yemen, as well as List of wars involving Yemen. However, given the significant amount of WP:OVERLAP between the three, we might consider the North and South lists WP:REDUNDANTFORKs, to be merged into List of wars involving Yemen. (The obvious difference being that North and South Yemen no longer exist, only a united Yemen, at least officially; by contrast, a united Korea no longer exists, but a North and South Korea do, despite claiming the whole peninsula for themselves.) But that would be a good idea for a follow-up if this AfD has been closed as nominated. NLeeuw (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. As with the list of wars involving North Korea, declaring historical states on the territory of modern South Korea (like Goryeo) to be predecessors to South Korea specifically is questionable. There's currently no need for a separate article. Cortador (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

We should have a main one for Korea, with links to separate lists for North Korea and South Korea. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I am open to this alternative proposal of three separate lists:

1. Korea until 1948
2. North Korea since 1948
3. South Korea since 1948

@Shazback below seems to be suggesting the same thing.

If we do choose for this alternative, I would recommend including the words until 1948 and since 1948 in the article titles just to make clear to both readers and editors what the scope of each list is, and to prevent creating WP:REDUNDANTFORKs again. Cortador was right that we shouldn't duplicate content, but merging all three lists into one might not be the best solution. Also for readability, navigability, and categorisation purposes, three separate lists would solve several practical problems, including the untenable idea that there is still a unified Korean state as of 2024. NLeeuw (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Very surprised by the outcome of the previous AfD, which I did not see/participate in. I would be surprised to be directed to a page covering wars of multiple states if I was looking for either one.
  My suggestion would for "List of wars involving Korea" to be a disambiguation page with 3 pages listed: "List of wars involving states of the Korean peninsula (pre-1948)"; "List of wars involving North Korea"; "List of wars involving South Korea". Both the latter pages only include post-1948 conflicts, and can have a section at the beginning stating that the state claim succession to pre-1948 states if necessary.
  This follows the most common way people view and analyse the world when considering wars (by state), avoids duplication by clearly separating historical lists where states did not match current territories (e.g., whatever criteria are most relevant for inclusion can be decided, for instance to consider the Ungjin Commandery without needing to worry if either South or North Korea claim it as a predecessor state), while remaining clear link targets that can be found easily. Shazback (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Most of these articles list every war that happened at a location, instead of the current nation. List of wars involving the United States doesn't list the wars that happened there between native Americans or others before the nation was officially founded. Dream Focus 18:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps because the United States does not claim succession of those states? Plenty of other articles list them by geography / include predecessor states to the current country (e.g., List of wars involving Poland, List of wars involving Vietnam). Shazback (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  As a general rule, we do not create lists or categories based on the geographic location where a war or battle took place, as this is usually WP:NONDEFINING. See WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. These lists are about belligerents involved in a conflict, not countries etc. where the conflict took place. Therefore, there are no battles "involving the United States" prior to the American Revolutionary War. NLeeuw (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  Not sure I follow / understand fully your comment. Both pages I shared include plenty of elements that occured prior to the current constitution / establishment of the Third Polish Republic or the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Many of these are lineage / predecessor states that had claim over the general area of the current state (not identical borders). Furthermore, a cursory / quick look at both these lists as well as the list of wars involving the United States shows they include cases were the state is not a belligerent per se: Bleeding Kansas in the USA list, the Later Trần rebellion (1407–1414) in the Vietnam list, and the Januszajtis putsch in the Poland list. I'd also note that World War I is listed as a conflict involving Poland, despite Poland not existing at any point during the war as a clear indication geography is considered when compiling these lists. These lists are not pages I like / find very useful exactly because of the points made in the WP: pages you linked. When looking at wars of Country A, my personal expectation is to see only the wars of what is commonly understood to be Country A in current geopolitics (i.e., for North Korea, 1948+, for the USA 1775/6+, for Poland 1918+, for Vietnam 1976+). But that's not how many other people like it, as they expect to see predecessor states' wars included in these lists. Shazback (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  My comment was a reply to both Dream Focus and you. I'm not necessarily disagreeing, just adding some thoughts and pointing to some relevant policies and guidelines. NLeeuw (talk) 11:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. As I see it the current list can't stand as it is but not for notability reasons. South Korea did not exist until 1948, so if we are going to have a list with this title, the earliest war should begin in 1948. However, if we are going to include wars extending back in time in that geographic area than that topic is better covered at List of wars involving Korea. So I would support a Keep if the list does not include content before 1948 or a redirect to List of wars involving Korea#South Korea. Best.4meter4 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 10:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep the List of wars involving South Korea and Reestablish the List of wars involving North Korea. Those two are the modern countries and disserve their own articles. The List of wars involving Korea article should have the wars that occurred before the 1945 division of Korea. Dash9Z (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 02:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment: Several participants of the previous AfD, as well as new participants, have indicated that they are surprised by the previous AfD's outcome, and do not think it serves as a good precedent for this one. That undermines my rationale.

As nom, moreover, I am open to the alternative proposal of three separate lists:

1. involving Korea until 1948
2. involving North Korea since 1948
3. involving South Korea since 1948

This alt proposal appears to enjoy a majority right now. The inclusion of the year 1948 in the title of all three separate lists also appears to enjoy some support, in order to prevent duplication (WP:REDUNDANTFORKs) and WP:OR by implying that North Korea and South Korea have already existed for hundreds of years. Even though the ROK and DPRK do not diplomatically recognise each other, the de facto reality is that Korea ceased to be a unified state in or around 1948, and has split in two, a situation which has been consolidated since the 1953 ceasefire. It is probably best if our lists of wars involving Fooland reflect that, and the year 1948 will serve as the turning point in which the Korea list splits into North Korea and South Korea. NLeeuw (talk) 06:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. This discussion is all over the place. This AFD is considering what, among the limited options, should happen with this article, List of wars involving South Korea. Right now, it seems like arguments are divided between Keep and Redirection. It doesn't help a closer to go off on tangents about what should happen with other articles, please present your argument on whether this specific article should be Kept, Merged, Redirected or Deleted. Larger discussions on this subject could perhaps occur on a related WikiProject talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

In that case, Keep this article, as a first step towards the three separate lists proposal. NLeeuw (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep as a WP:SPINOFF of List of wars involving Korea#South Korea. This list should only reflect the political entity of south korea (est 1948) and not the geographic location. I agree with the nom's proposal to have three different lists, with the north/south korea lists inside List of wars involving Korea (the subsections) being limited to at minimum extremely notable wars with articles, and with the "full" list/main article being linked to at the top of the section. DarmaniLink (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to page List of wars involving Korea. Seems to be an unnecessary duplication. My very best wishes (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Military Proposed deletions

The following articles have been tagged for proposed deletion:

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