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

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

List of participants at the Battle of Badr[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

unsourced mess of a list that admits it's incomplete. blow it up. ltb d l (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ltb d l (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Merge, would be more useful to include in the battle of Badr page via a "participants" section or something like that rather then outright deletion. Noorullah (talk) 09:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A question for those proposing a merge. What source are you suggesting should be cited? Even if a list of this length were to be appropriate (I contend that it isn't), we cannot add it without proper sourcing meeting WP:RS requirements. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AndyTheGrump Reply At the bottom of the article, there seems to be a cited list of the individuals who participated, so that could serve as a source if it complies with WP:RS. Noorullah (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two references and neither reliable. References for history pages need to be from a scholarly literature. The page fails wp:n. RangersRus (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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