Deletion SortingProject (talk)Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts .mw-parser-output .navbar{display:inline;font-size:88%;font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .navbar-collapse{float:left;text-align:left}.mw-parser-output .navbar-boxtext{word-spacing:0}.mw-parser-output .navbar ul{display:inline-block;white-space:nowrap;line-height:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::before{margin-right:-0.125em;content:"[ "}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::after{margin-left:-0.125em;content:" ]"}.mw-parser-output .navbar li{word-spacing:-0.125em}.mw-parser-output .navbar a>span,.mw-parser-output .navbar a>abbr{text-decoration:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-mini abbr{font-variant:small-caps;border-bottom:none;text-decoration:none;cursor:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-full{font-size:114%;margin:0 7em}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-mini{font-size:114%;margin:0 4em}v t e

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:

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.
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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Military.

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

Purge page cache

watch

Military and combat[edit]

Teresa Harding

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

Mayors are not automatically notable under WP:NPOL. I could not find sufficient sources with significant coverage to demonstrate that this article meets the GNG. In the article, only the Brisbane Times may count – the rest are electoral results and a government (CCC) report that doesn't mention the subject. As part of WP:BEFORE, I found two articles [1] [2], neither of which constitutes SIGCOV of the subject. Toadspike (talk) 11:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Eden, a discussion on a different mayor article created by the same editor. Toadspike (talk) 11:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added some further sources which I think come under SIGCOV Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Military, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to pass WP:SIGCOV based on the cited sources. I'd need to see a more convincing source analysis by the nominator to be convinced otherwise.4meter4 (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1950 Afghan invasion of Balochistan

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

Already mentioned in similar page of Afghanistan-Pakistan border skirmishes, page isn't distinguishable for WP:GNG and is mostly background information rather then any relevant information about a major invasion.

The sources are also extremely lacking/poor, many being blog sites. Noorullah (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Afghanistan and Pakistan. Noorullah (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check it out brother, now it's completely rebranded and is far more notable than it was, I gave more conflicts and stuff like that Waleed Ukranian (talk) 07:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I'll give more information about the invasion and I think it's pretty notable enough to have it's own page Waleed Ukranian (talk) 04:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Afghanistan–Pakistan skirmishes

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

Why does this page exist? There is an exact identical sort of this page except it spans for all known border skirmishes until now. It fails WP:NOTABILITY.

There isn't really any reason this page should exist when it is pretty much a direct replica of the page Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes except based in 2024. Noorullah (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Afghanistan and Pakistan. Noorullah (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a replica just compare the two pages, it's like deleting all Pakistan-India skirmishes as there's a page for all of them Waleed Ukranian (talk) 04:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article isn't solely about border skirmishes, it covers attacks inside the territories Pakistan/Afghanistan as well, particularly Khost and Paktika airstrikes. 2024 Afghanistan–Pakistan skirmishes meet the WP:GNG and justify a standalone article. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 07:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Only if editors @Saqib @Waleed Ukranian can add sources and text indicating that it is a major and unprecedented series of attacks different from other Afghanistan–Pakistan_border_skirmishes. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 10:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I nowhere claimed these attacks as "unprecedented," but they do mark a significant turning point in Pakistan's relations with the Taliban-led Afghan government. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 10:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't unprecedented but it is pretty significant, usually clashes involve deaths of about 3-5 but this one has claimed the lives of upto 50 and is significant as Pakistan has airstriked Afghan soil which has happened like only twice since Taliban takeover, it has also lead to a nationwide terror campaign in Pakistan and the news articles I provided as sources are pretty reliable and include al Jazeera, DW news,AP news amongst other reliable sources Waleed Ukranian (talk) 13:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources include Al Jazeera, DW news, Reuters, AP news, The original and Dawn news which are pretty reliable so I don'</nowiki>t know why it has been nominated for deletion InfoHistoric23 (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The clashes are far more intense than the previous ones. The other Pakistani airstrikes on Afghanistan have their own article after it caused nearly 50 casualties. This one has roughly the same amount so going by precedent, it should be kept. However, it might be necessary to get rid of the irrelevant attacks which aren't connected to the border clash itself.

RamHez (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CAT (magazine)

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

I couldn't find sources to establish that this magazine is notable, or a good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sangamner

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

This article clearly fails WP:N which refers to the military conflict as the "Battle of Sangamner," seems more like a skirmish, sack or devastation (raid?). Found only two reliable sources which talks around this event but both contradict each other.

Shivaji his life and times.. Gives more insights and it has comprehensive coverage around this conflict and even cites Shivaji own letter describing this event as a Maratha victory:"We assembled the entire army and went in person with the army near Bijapur. Considering that the enemy was strong — and particularly the Pathan tribe is obstinate — [we thought that] such tactics should be adopted that he would become disappointed and defeated. Therefore, we decided upon imposing a pull [upon the enemy] by spreading the army in his territory. Accordingly we left Dilir Khan at a distance of three gaos, crossed the Bhima River and went on devastating the country right up to Jalnapur. We went to Jalnapur, made a halt for four days and plundered the market. A large wealth fell into [our] hands. Jalnapur is [at a distance of] four gaos from Aurangabad. Disregarding that the Prince was at that place [Aurangabad] [we] sacked the market. An immense wealth, besides gold, silver, elephants and horses was found [there].While we were marching on horseback towards the fort Pattagad with that [wealth] Ranmast Khan and Asaf Khan and Zabit Khan and five or seven such officers with eight or ten thousand troopers came in the way. We chastised them, captured horses and elephants and arrived at [fort] Patta. Then [we] sent the army again to wreak havoc in the [enemy] territory and sent Moropant, the prime minister, to capture the 27 forts of the Mughals that are in the province of Baglan and Khandesh and to capture territory and we [in person] halted at [fort] Patta."
On the other hand Dictionary of Battles and Sieges. gives a different POV of this conflict King’s rearguard held theMughals for three days of hard fighting beforeMaratha commander Sidhoji Nimbalkar waseventually killed, along with about 2,000 of his men. The title is a fabricated one, which contradicts the criteria for creating an article about a military conflict. Note that most of the sources which mention this conflict as even a skirmish, falls under WP:RAJ. If it's notable enough then it could be merged into Deccan Wars or any other parent articles and moving/renaming the page to Battle of Jalna would be better but doesn't seem eligible for its own page with this title.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudsahab (talk • contribs) 12:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- Not found any WP:RS mentioning "Battle of Sangamner" nor any Historians referring to it as such. Delete or merge to appropriate parent article.--Imperial ^[AFCND] 12:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Banas (1300)

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

No reliable sources or historians refer to the military conflict as the "Battle of Banas," indicating that the title is an invented name. We do not invent names for military conflicts such as "Battle of X" or "Siege of X" unless they are mentioned in reliable sources WP:RS. As a result, the article fails to meet naming criteria.

Moreover, the military conflict is part of Alauddin Khalji's invasion of Chittorgarh and could potentially be merged with the Siege of Chittorgarh (1303) as a prelude. The conflict appears to be more of a skirmish than a full-fledged battle and is only briefly mentioned in scattered lines within sources, primarily as part of the Siege of Chittorgarh. Consequently, the article fails to meet the criteria of Wikipedia's general notability WP:GNG and naming standards.Imperial ^[AFCND] 09:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperialAficionado the battle isn't a part of siege of chittorgarh 1303. Allauddin sent the forces to defeat Hammiradeva , and the battle took place at Banas

Khilji sultans in Rajasthan

Thus Ulugh Khan marched with an army of 80,000 to plunder and lay waste the Chthamana country. When the armies, of Islam reached the river 'Varnansa' (Banas), they found it difficult to march through the pass leading to Hammira's territory. Ulugh Khan, therefore, encamped therefor some days and burnt and destroyed the villages of its neighbhbourhood. When the misdeeds of the Muslim army were brought to Hammira, was then engaged in religious rites, for he has not yet completed this 'Muniverata.'2 That Hammira at the moment was busy in the performance of some religious rites has also been stated in the Surjana Charita. So Hammira could not personally take the field and instead sent two of his generals, Bhimasimha and Dharmasiraha, to drive away the invaders. They gained a decisive victory over the Muslim hosateBanas a and large number of the Muslim soldiers were killed inction Narook (talk) 10:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As long as there is no mention of "Battle of Banas". We can't keep it. Thanks. Imperial ^[AFCND] 10:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm inclined to say delete since it seems to fail notability guidelines. But, if it can be merged with the wider war/effort/offensive that it was a part of, that would be better. If not, delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The information about the battle comes from the Hammira Mahakavya, whose historical reliability is debatable. The salvageable content is already part of Alauddin Khalji's conquest of Ranthambore#Death of Bhimasimha. utcursch | talk 14:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This source used for this battle seems unreliable if the creator could provide reliable sources this battle could be kept

WhiteReaperPM (talk) 06:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Ontala (1599)

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

Reasons are listed below:

The article title, "Siege of Ontala (1599)," appears to be fabricated. There are no reliable sources mentioning either "Siege of Ontala (1599) [3]" or simply "Siege of Ontala [4]" that occurred in 1599. This name seems to be invented, as no historian refers to the military conflict by this name .
Among all the sources cited in the article, with the exception of "Encyclopaedia Indica: Mughals and Rajputs," all other sources fall under either WP:RAJ, WP:AGEMATTERS, or WP:V. The article lacks coverage in enough reliable secondary sources, thus failing to meet the notability criteria WP:GNG. The information can be easily merged to any of the parent articles. Imperial ^[AFCND] 09:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amar Singh besieged the fort of Ontala from Mughals in 1599. [1]1st

siege at Ontala , in Rajasthan , in Jahangier's time an elephant refused to push at a spiked gate , when a Rajpoot Chief placed his body between it and the gate

source 2:

2nd

Page number 15, Siege of ontala is mentioned

Source 3:

3rd

The siege of the frontier fortress of Ontala, which is about thirty kilometres east of Oodipoor, is famous in the annals of Rajasthan

It's a historical battle lol Narook (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mewar & the Mughal Emperors (1526-1707 A.D.)

Page 125- Kayum Khan, the Mughal general of Ontala was killed while resisting the Rajput attack and the fort of Ontala fell in the hands of Amar Singh's men. Narook (talk) 09:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperialAficionado aren't these sources enough? Narook (talk) 09:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperialAficionado the article should not be deleted

Amar Singh besieged the fort of Ontala from Mughals in 1599. [1]1st

siege at Ontala , in Rajasthan , in Jahangier's time an elephant refused to push at a spiked gate , when a Rajpoot Chief placed his body between it and the gate

source 2:

2nd

Page number 15, Siege of ontala is mentioned

Source 3:

3rd

The siege of the frontier fortress of Ontala, which is about thirty kilometres east of Oodipoor, is famous in the annals of Rajasthan

Source 4 : Mewar & the Mughal Emperors (1526-1707 A.D.)

Page 125- Kayum Khan, the Mughal general of Ontala was killed while resisting the Rajput attack and the fort of Ontala fell in the hands of Amar Singh's men

Narook (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ontala is also pronounced as Untala

The annual of the east- page 136

siege of Untala, who, descending calmly from his elephant, placed his body on the spikes of the high portal, to serve as a cushion for the beast to push against...

Calcutta Review Volumes 104-105 page 8

Volumes 104-105

Rana Amara Sing , who recovered Chitor after its last capture by Akbar , and the occasion was the attack on the fortress of Untala , whose ruins still Stand between Chittor and udaipur Narook (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources are unreliable and not verifiable. The deletion discussion is not a place to make questions against me. If you could do WP:HEY. Go for it. But as long as there is no reliable sources calling it "Siege of Ontala", we can't keep this on mainspace. It's all about naming an event. Imperial ^[AFCND] 10:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperialAficionado Unreliable?? Seriously? Do you think historians who've written these books are fools? Narook (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RAJ, WP:AGEMATTERS, WP:V, and WP:RS. Not evert historian is reliable. And we are definitely not making articles for each and every military conflicts here. See WP:Guide to Deletion and please do not fill the page with unnecessary messages. Imperial ^[AFCND] 10:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperialAficionado it was a major decisive victory for the kingdom of Mewar, stop Mughal POV pushing Narook (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- the article shouldn't be deleted see WP:RSes. We have multiple sources about siege of ontala 1599 Narook (talk) 10:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperialAficionado before adding articles for deletion, please discuss about the article in the talk section Narook (talk) 10:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Narook, please stop WP:BLUDGEONING the AfD. Out of the 11 comments on this AfD, 9 of those are yours. Calm down and let the process happen. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the sources appear to refer to the event as 'The Siege of Ontala' so we cannot have a page called The Siege of Ontala. Tennisist123 (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, there is the wild possibility of moving the article to a different page title that is more appropriate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the context pass WP:GNG, we can keep by moving. Else, there is no other option. Imperial ^[AFCND] 05:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz the Siege of ontala is also called as Siege of Untala 1 moving the page from Siege of Ontala to Siege of Untala would be a better idea Narook (talk) 06:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•Keep- @Tennisist123 @Liz @Spiderone I've quoted the sources mentioning Siege of Ontala below

Encyclopaedia Indica: Mughals and Rajputs (1999) Page 72: Siege of Ontala , the siege of which is famous for one of the most extraordinary exhibitions of Rajput courage recorded in the annals of Rajasthan . The right to lead the herole ( vanguard ) , which had for generations belonged to the Chondawats.

Glimpses of Old Bombay and Western India, with Other Papers page 315

siege at Ontala , in Rajasthan , in Jehangier's time an elephant refused to push at a spiked gate , when a Rajpoot Chief placed his body between it and the gate ,

Maharaj Shakti Singh and the Shaktawats of Boheda (2004)

During the Siege of Untala and Sacrifice of Ballu The right to lead in battle was regarded as a sign of the greatest honour among the Rajputs . This honour was traditionally enjoyed by the Chundawats in Mewar . During the reign of Maharana Amar Singh Narook (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing these, @Narook

From my perspective, 1 and 2 are not admissible. 1. We should not be using encyclopedias as proof of notability. 2. Does not describe a proper noun, it describes that a siege occured at this place. The existence of a siege is not what is under discussion but whether the acton was commonly referred to as The Siege of Ontala.

3. is great and supportive of keeping the page. However, I still do not think it is sufficient alone. Tennisist123 (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bandanwara

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

None of the reliable sources WP:RS refer to the military conflict as the "Battle of Bandanwara," nor do any historians recognize it by that name. The title is a fabricated one, which contradicts the criteria for creating an article about a military conflict. The article does not meet the notability WP:GNG, as the sources merely mention it as a military conflict, without dedicating even a single page completely to it. Moreover, there is no record of a battle called the "Battle of Bandanwara" in the specified year mentioned in the article. Imperial ^[AFCND] 08:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, and suggest withdrawal. The nomination seems flawed, and fails perhaps both WP:SK #1 and #3. The OP's issue seems mainly with the name, which can be addressed elsewwhere From the History of Mewar, p.324:

On receiving intelligence of his march, the Maharana decided to intercept him on the border of Mewar. For this purpose he despatched a large army headed by the Chiefs, Chauhan Devabhan (Kothariya), Rathor Suratsingh, Sanga (Devagarh), Dodiya Hathisingh, Gangadas (Bansi), Jhala Sajja (Delawara), Rathor Jaisingh (Badnor), Samantsingh (Bambhora) etc, In an engagement held at Bandhanwara Ranabaz Khan together with his chiefs were slain and the Maharana succeeded to retain the paraganas in his possession

. These events are dated to February/March I711. So at least one historian mentions it by this name (give or take an 'h'!) and considers the date correct. Suggesting a military engagement isn't a battle of some kind seems a bit of a stretch. And frankly, suggesting that this is fabricated could be interpreted as an aspersion, as it suggests a deliberate hoax. Which is clearly not the case.

Other sources also discuss the battle in the context of military and political history (e.g. The Grenadiers, a Tradition of Valour, Mewar and the Maratha Relations, 1735-1818 A.D., Pratap, the Patriot: With a Concise History of Mewar), and even culturally (e.g. Paintings from Rajasthan in the National Gallery of Victoria etc). I'm afraid this nomination makes some curious claims, claims which are directly contradicted by reliable sources. ——Serial Number 54129 14:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Serial Number 54129. Could you please provide the source that explicitly mentions the name "Battle of Bandanwara"? It's important to note that these are only Google snippet notes, which are often available even for minor skirmishes. The battle must be thoroughly described in reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG. If the event meets the GNG as mentioned above, we could consider renaming the article or merging it with one of the parent articles. If you could develop the article so that we can submit it for review through WP:HEY, and if it meets the GNG, we can move it to the appropriate title. The current status of the article does not meet the standard requirements. Imperial ^[AFCND] 16:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RA-78804

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

The incident is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Per WP:AIRCRASH, in general, military aircraft incidents are not notable. The accident didn't result in a significant change in the operation of the aircraft or the operation of the Russian Air Force. Thus, the incident failed WP:GNG. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Aviation, and Russia. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added several references from the corresponding article in the Russian Wikipedia at ru:Катастрофа Ил-76 под Абаканом. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect. The article in question doesn't meet the criteria for notability per nomination. However, there is already an existing article titled List of Russian military accidents that include incidents such as this one. Integrating this article into the existing list would be better solution. Ckfasdf (talk) 05:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator refers to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents where that states: "it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting." Next to that the nominator wrongly states that the essay states "in general, military aircraft incidents are not notable". The essay itself states "Accidents involving light aircraft and military aircraft are mostly non-prominent."

Most of the military accidents that happens regulary are carrying 1 or a few crew members. This accident killed 24 people, including 13 passengers. So (as example) in my opition it's about the same notability as the previous month 2024 Ivanovo Ilyushin Il-76 crash: a militairy airplane that crashed (15 peoeple were killed including passengers were killed).

An investigaion has been done into the cause of the crash and advice was given to prevent a similar accident.

There were multiple aspects on several levels (from the pilots, to the air traffic control, to aircraft weight inspector/approver to airplane map designer) that contributed to this crash including:

The 337 metres high hill was not indicated on the map of the pilots

The aircraft was overloaded

Air traffic control was not checking the location of the aircraft after take-off

A SOS signal went off but was ignored

That makes that the accidents meets all the aspects of WP:Event

But the article should be renamed: The current title of "RA-78804" is the registration number of the aircraft. According to the standards, the article should be moved to: 1996 Abakan Ilyushin IL-76 crash. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skadovsk polling center bombing

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

Definitively not notable. See 2024 Russian presidential election#Incidents for a list of similar events. This one didn't have any fatal casualties. The only element of notability is that it was done by Ukrainian partisans which isn't enough as I see it. Super Ψ Dro 00:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, Russia, and Ukraine. Super Ψ Dro 00:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Salfanto (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is one of the many attacks that took place during the Russian presidential election. This seems like it can be merged into that article, especially considering there were no fatalities. The only major impact it seemed to have was to "cancel further elections in the city but allow voting at a place of residence," (from the Skadovsk polling center bombing article) but I think this can be covered in the section of the election article. Gödel2200 (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2024 Russian presidential election#Incidents per Gödel. An event appearing the in the news does not warrant it receiving its own article, especially when it can be covered in the article of the broader topic. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Chasiv Yar

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

There isn't even any fighting in Chasiv Yar. WP:TOOSOON. If a battle starts there we can give it its own article, but there is no battle right now.

This is another of the many content forks of this war that keep getting deleted. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Tokmak, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Chuhuiv, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Dvorichna, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Krasnohorivka, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Russian offensive. Super Ψ Dro 00:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Super Ψ Dro 00:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Regarding the scope of a battle, a battle does not have to be in the city itself to constitute being a battle. The Battle of Stalingrad was from 17 July 1942 to 2 February 1943, yet the Germans did not reach the city itself till late August, yet the fighting on the distant approaches to the city is considered part of the singular battle. Same applies to the battle of Bakhmut, sources recognize the battle as having began in its outskirts, before the city was even under siege, as early as July, or even May of 2022. The ISW also notes that Russian sources recognize the offensives around Bakhmut as a concentrated effort on taking Chasiv Yar. Reaper1945 (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same could apply to the battle of Kyiv, there was not any fighting within the actual city itself, but on the approaches to it, similar to the Battle of Moscow from 1941 to 1942, no fighting in the city itself but on the approaches. So limiting a battle to having to be actually in the city itself or whatever measurement to define closeness to constitute a battle is subjective and not stringently defined. Reaper1945 (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're comparing the Russian capital, the greatest battle in history and the Ukrainian capital with a random town in Ukraine with a pre-war population of 12,250. The case of Kyiv is an exception in the topic area of this war because it was the Ukrainian capital and it was the initial phases of the war when everyone thought Ukraine was going to fall and thus we actually have sources reporting on a battle for Kyiv. I don't see such sources for Chasiv Yar.

Judging from the sources in this article there is an acknowledgment that Russia is approaching the city (Ruins and corpses among the howitzers: Russia prepares its next great siege in eastern Ukraine, Military: Ukraine partially retakes ground near Avdiivka while Russia pushes toward Chasiv Yar) but not of a "battle of Chasiv Yar" yet. May I by the way remind that the article barely has any information on a supposed battle. The article barely reflects the discussion that is taking place here. Super Ψ Dro 10:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most historians would consider the Battle of Stalingrad to be the greatest battle in history, such as British historian Geoffrey Roberts, and Russian sources, such as Soviet general Viktor Matsulenko, and other Russian scholars who refer to it as the "battle of the century".^[1] Also, the Battle of Stalingrad is considered to have began on the distant approaches to the city, in the Don Bend, on 17 July, yet it was neither Moscow or Kyiv, both capital cities, so clearly fighting within a city is the not the definite mark of a battle. On top of that, the Battle of Bakhmut, despite the apparent main assault towards the city on 1 August, is regarded by numerous analysts at ISW as beginning in July of 2022, when Russia made advances towards the city, or even earlier in May, when fighting in the Bakhmut area actually began, yet the city is not a capital. Restricting the naming of a battle because it is not a capital or "greatest battle of all time" is not really sound logic, and the ISW analysts recognize that Russian offensives towards Chasiv Yar constitute an operation to take Chasiv Yar. Again, is there a stringent list of requirements which includes that a battle for a city must first start with fighting inside the city? Otherwise, numerous examples prove otherwise, including those above. Reaper1945 (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are there sources saying a battle has started in Chasiv Yar? Ultimately that's what matters, rather than discussing other cases. Currently the article only has sources saying russia is advancing towards the town and anticipating a battle in the future. Super Ψ Dro 20:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Six sources given in the lede state that the "fighting", "defence" and "battle" of Chasiv Yar has already begun. Reaper1945 (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Salfanto (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A !vote without any comment or rationale will hardly be taken into account by the closer. Super Ψ Dro 10:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom that the battle hasn't actually started yet. None of the sources in English refer to this as a battle (though if someone could check the foreign sources that would be appreciated). The article claims that this source says "positional battles" were occuring around Chasiv Yar, but that is actually incorrect: the source says "positional engagements" were occuring around Chasiv Yar. Until the actual battle starts, this is, as nom said, WP:TOOSOON. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'd normally be all for deleting the article, however, the actual article on Chasiv Yar is really slanted (to be honest, mostly due to my contributions) because there isn't really any other place for info on Chasiv Yar in the war to live. If we where to migrate all the stuff in the Chasiv Yar Russin invasion section to a background section then I'd think we'd have enough to keep this article afloat. I don't think Ukraine is going to be making a push for Bakhmut anytime soon (I'd love to be proven wrong) and it is far more likely that Russia is just going to intensify it's attacks in the Donbas in the near future. Scu ba (talk) 01:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTALBALL. Currently there is no battle in Chasiv Yar, so we can simply not have an article on it. As I said, we can create an article if a battle erupts in the future (maybe draftifying this article could be an option if editors deem a battle to start soon as likely). The information here can be easily integrated at Chasiv Yar#Russian invasion of Ukraine so that no information is lost. Super Ψ Dro 20:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A battle does not have to take place in the city itself to constitute a battle, again, this would apply to the battle of Kyiv or Battle of Moscow which saw no fighting within the cities themselves. Reaper1945 (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the March 26 ISW report mentions fighting within city limits. Scu ba (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geolocated footage published on March 24 indicates that Russian forces marginally advanced northeast of Kanal (an eastern suburb of Chasiv Yar). Nothing about fighting inside the city. Super Ψ Dro 10:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Reaper1945 Durranistan (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify- it isn't clear that the battle has begun yet and we can't be sure that there will be a "Battle of Chasiv Yar" in the future (assuming that there will be is WP:CRYSTALBALL)- however, many sources do mention advances towards Chasiv Yar, so it'd be best to leave it as a draft to be expanded and reworked until sources start speaking of an actual battle there.

Some have mentioned the fact that it's not necessary for there to be fighting in the city limits for there to be a battle of that city (e.g. Moscow, Kyiv), but those offensives were major and are universally deemed a battle in themselves, while the apparent Russian advance to Chasiv Yar appears to be... just that, an apparent Russian advance on the town. Doesn't really constitute a full battle yet - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 20:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with name Chasiv Yar during the Russian invasion of Ukraine.Mr.User200 (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An article like that seems like it would be easily integrable into Chasiv Yar#Russian invasion of Ukraine, given this article's short length. This would also be an unprecedented format of article. Super Ψ Dro 19:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know there is no fighting there? Eehuiio (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is no proof for now that Russian forces reached at least eastern outskirts of the city, the front line is now close to the city but not in the city itself. Hyfdghg (talk) 03:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is on anyone arguing there is a battle taking place in the city right now, not on the opposite side. Super Ψ Dro 10:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to Chasiv Yar in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. RS does back up that Chasiv Yar is being targetted ([5][6]), however, RS also supports that there is no direct confrontation in Chasiv Yar nor any attacks/airstrikes. Chasiv Yar is an administrative center for the Chasiv Yar urban hromada, so my !vote for keeping and renaming the article supports that information pretaining to the Chasiv Yar urban hromada's four settlements are included in the article. I do agree that a "Battle of Chasiv Yar" article is WP:TOOSOON, however, deletion is not necessary due to RS support that Chasiv Yar is a current objective in the invasion. Note, my !vote should not be prejudice against a future "Battle of Chasiv Yar" article (i.e. a future renaming of this article to the current title) if and/or when combat begins to take place in the city. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WeatherWriter There actually have been artillery and air attacks on Chasiv Yar. On 17 February 2024, Russians dropped an ODAB-1500 thermobaric bomb on defending positions in Chasiv Yar,^[2]^[3] and shelling reported on 2 December 2023^[4] and 9 March 2024.^[5] Sources also mention that Rusaian forces are within a couple miles of the city, extremely close and pushing towards the city. Reaper1945 (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reaper1945: Even then, that just supports my !vote. Pushing towards the city does not imply a "battle" has taken place or is currently taking place. The bombing references above just support that the article should not be deleted, but rather (most likely temporarily) be renamed to not include "battle" in the title. It can be renamed back to "battle of" once fighting begins to take place army vs army in the city itself. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WeatherWriter Settlements in the Chasiv Yar urban hromada have been attacked and stormed, such as Bohdanivka, and Ivanivske, which is immediately east of Chasiv Yar has been captured by Russian forces on 23 March. I do not see how fighting on the outskirts of a city does not constitute a battle? Analysts at ISW and Kyiv Independent reporters clearly view the Battle of Bakhmut beginning on its outskirts when its settlements were attacked and Russian forces pushed towards the city, despite no fighting within the city yet, how can the same not be said for Chasiv Yar? Reaper1945 (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Исаакович, Цветков Анатолий; Александрович, Борщ Александр (2018). "СТАЛИНГРАДСКАЯ БИТВА - СРАЖЕНИЕ ВЕКА (К 75-ЛЕТИЮ РАЗГРОМА НЕМЕЦКО-ФАШИСТСКИХ ВОЙСК ПОД СТАЛИНГРАДОМ)". Научно-аналитический журнал Обозреватель - Observer (1 (336)): 111–119. ISSN 2074-2975.
^ Ситников, Александр (2024-02-19). "О начале битвы за Часов Яр известил эпический «почти ядерный» взрыв". svpressa.ru (in Russian). Retrieved 2024-03-31.
^ Shcherbak, Svetlana (2024-03-30). "Was the ODAB-1500 Aviation Bomb Used by the Enemy for the First Time: What Is Its Main Danger?". en.defence-ua.com. Retrieved 2024-03-31.
^ Presse, AFP-Agence France (2023-12-02). "Russian Shelling Kills One In Ukraine's Chasiv Yar: Kyiv". www.barrons.com. Retrieved 2024-03-31.
^ "Russians shell Chasiv Yar, killing a man". www.pravda.com.ua. 2024-03-09. Retrieved 2024-03-31.

Draftify WP:TOOSOON internet searches say that battle hasn’t started yet (Russia did not even reach the city yet) so there is no battle to report (yet).Contributor892z (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here yet. Please work to give policy-based opinions on what should happen with this article. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A brief google search of "battle of chasiv yar" gives few results of such a thing existing, with very few mainstream sources. In my humble opinion, it would be better to write about this is a "post- battle of Bakmutt" framework rather than a distinct entity. For instance, as part of the "eastern front" of ukraine, after bakmutts fall, several villages fell after prolonged shelling and skirmishes, including chasiv yar. While I have no doubt many people have died in chasiv yar and much has been blown up, its not noteworthy enough (unlike mauripol, avdidivka, bakmutt). That could change o course, but for now delete.2605:A601:5553:B000:F5AC:CA05:A342:E541 (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously keep. By now, it's too late to delete this article. As of today, it was confirmed that Russian forces entered the city and there is already fighting inside city boundaries (check the ISW map). Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Orlivka

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

Not notable. Fighting here is irrelevant, this is a continuation of the Battle of Avdiivka (2023–2024). After Avdiivka fell on 17 February Russian forces continued advancing until they were stopped on three villages as fighting became stalled again. These are Orlivka, Stepove and Tonenke. There is no need for this page, it can be covered either in the Battle of Avdiivka article or in the broader Eastern Ukraine campaign.

Uncountable content forks have been created as a result of this war and they've been continously deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Tokmak, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Chuhuiv, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Dvorichna, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Krasnohorivka, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Russian offensive and many many more. Super Ψ Dro 00:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Super Ψ Dro 00:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Eastern Ukraine campaign#Avdiivka breakthrough (January 2024–present). This battle is much better presented as an aftereffect of the Battle of Avdiivka, and is not notable on its own (and none of the listed sources actually refer to this as a battle). Gödel2200 (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024 Polish airspace violation

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

Not notable. There is not much to say about this event that isn't in the article already. Furthermore, other than the deadly missile explosion in Przewodów in 2022, there have been several other events like these in Poland that we haven't given an article [7] [8]. Airspace violations in Moldova and Romania haven't got their own articles either, and they've been often, specially in Moldova. Simply I don't find this event notable. Super Ψ Dro 23:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Poland, Russia, and Ukraine. Super Ψ Dro 23:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This seems to fail WP:TENYEARS. Jebiguess (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no follow-up report, this article should be merged. In fact, the description in Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 December 2023 – present)#24 March is sufficient. 日期20220626 (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Article is sourced by RS, is very easily searchable on Google for dozens of other RS, and is about an event occurring on the same day as article creation and deletion. Nomination again is on the same day (i.e. less than 24 hours after the event occurred) so WP:RAPID is at play here (AfD less than 5 hours after creation of article). WP:DELAY was waiting for by over 12 hours after the event to help see notability, so the article was not rush created. The other events brought up amid the nomination also may be routine coverage events OR notable events to yet be created. Further research would have to be conducted to see which is the case, anyway that is a clear case of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, which is not valid for deletion. In short, the entire deletion nomination rests on WP:NEVENT, which it passess all criteria except for LASTING due to the very obvious RAPID deletion attempt. AfD should be closed as a Keep with the posibility of a future AfD OR merge discussion after it becomes clear (at least a week from now) if the event is routine or has lasting coverage. But yeah, keep due to a very poor RAPID deletion attempt. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there were no further developments following Poland's protest to Russia, this article should obviously be merged. 日期20220626 (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy close. I urge the nominator to take this to a merge or redirect discussion. There is no way this will be deleted as it's notable within a larger event. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFD's can be closed as a merge or a redirect. There is no need for a speedy close. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with the Weather Event Writer that WP:RAPID applies here. I doubt this will be notable enough for its own article but WP:Lasting coverage over the next few days and weeks are important in deciding notability. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Event not worthy of an article. Wikipedia is not a news outlet. Ecrusized (talk) 08:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:TENYEARS. An event where a cruise missile strayed into a neighboring airspace for 39 seconds in the course of a major war, without any effect or apparent intention, is simply irrelevant to the extreme. MaeseLeon (talk) 08:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename into a more generic article like Airspace violations during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, as there are more similar events that could be covered in 1 article. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 09:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Violations of non-combatant airspaces during the Russian invasion of Ukraine already exists. Super Ψ Dro 09:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as indeed "there have been several other events like these in Poland that we haven't given an article [1] [2]. Airspace violations in Moldova and Romania haven't got their own articles either, and they've been often, specially in Moldova." so this is a significant topic! Xobbitua (talk) 08:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable as a indvidual event, one of the many such violations Marcelus (talk) 10:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As like some of the other similar violations covered in the Violations of non-combatant airspaces during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, this is not notable enough for its own article per WP:NOTNEWS. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This event had little-to-no effect on the wider conflict, and does not have the notability deserving of a separate article. Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no reason to expect WP:LASTING effects. Possibly worthy of a mention in other articles/lists, but definitely not notable enough for its own article. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The only ones with an article in Violations of non-combatant airspaces during the Russian invasion of Ukraine have been crashes or have caused deaths. Simply not notable enough for its own article, especially considering similar such events have not had articles made. Sadustu Tau (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS and lack of sustained coverage. Stop creating articles for events just because they appeared in the news. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep important military and political event, which almost led to a serious diplomatic crisis with the potential expulsion of the Russian ambassador [9] [10]. The details for an international event of this scale would be better in a separate article so as not to overload the more general articles, per Wikipedia:Content forks. — Baidax ^💬 22:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that Poland did not expel the Russian ambassador, so the missile intrusion into Polish airspace really has no big impact.--日期20220626 (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Poland–Russia relations#Russian invasion of Ukraine — I kind of agree with the notion that the content in Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 December 2023 – present)#24 March might be sufficient, but I think the main impact is on Poland-Russia relations and not as part of the war in Ukraine (just another salvo). It's been pointed out that Poland didn't take any real action ... but it is part of a set of events that might lead to a response, which is where my recommend for Poland-Russia relations comes from. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Poland–Russia relations#Russian invasion of Ukraine as there have been many airspace violations by Russia and this is not notable by itself. (unfortunately.. because there have been many such) ++Lar: t/c 01:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to delete it again. As of now, it's obviously WP:NOTNEWS anymore as expected. It was a very minor event in a major war without significant consequences. Just contextualize and mention it in Violations of non-combatant airspaces during the Russian invasion of Ukraine or Poland–Russia relations#Russian invasion of Ukraine as suggested by others above. MaeseLeon (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC) (unbolding vote, you can not vote more than once. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Delete The article is short and is not of key importance to the events for which it is worth creating it. If so, you can include this information in an existing article. KujKuń (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Adolf, Prince of Bentheim and Steinfurt

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

Fails WP:GNG. The principality of Bentheim and Steinfurt was mediatized in 1806. His and his son's war service is not notable enough for an article. DrKay (talk) 06:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Royalty and nobility, and Germany. DrKay (talk) 06:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A head of a defunct house is still notable. This was on the "Did you know" part on the main page. And he studied at Corps Borussia Bonn and became a captain which approves notability for WP:GNG. Azarctic (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please link where those are GNG criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: There is no link from any 'Did you know' archive to this article, nor any notice on the talk page that the article was once on 'Did you know'. The article had existed for less than 24 hours prior to nomination for deletion. DrKay (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of significant IRS coverage. Article is cobbled together from passing mentions and primary sources. JoelleJay (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous arguments.

98.228.137.44 (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per User:Azarctic. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 05:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian-Hungarian War (1387-1390)

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

Reviewed during NPP. There's nothing in the one on line source given that confirms that this even exists and I could not find anything in a search. I looked several places on the history of Dalmatia and none of the mentions it. Creator appears to not be present in Wikipedia. Either way not much to lose, the contents of this stub pretty much is already at a table at List of wars involving Bosnia and Herzegovina which I put a CN tag on. North8000 (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Hungary. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I remember there's been a few of these kinds of 'war' articles created with very little documentation... I searched online for rat bosna ugarska 1387 -wiki, and found no clear reference to a war, but rather e.g. this 2011 paper which uses the terms sukob (conflict) but not these specific years, and describes the context of Sigismund pretensions to Bosnian crown, with all the various noblemen in a nuanced set of relationships, and different historians characterizing these differently. WP:TNT probably applies here. --Joy (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The lead of the GA Tvrtko I of Bosnia says After bitter fighting, from 1385 to 1390, Tvrtko succeeded in conquering large parts of Slavonia, Dalmatia, and Croatia proper. The article has much more. As of now, the one line stub is inferior to the Trvtko I article, but you cannot generally treat conflicts in an article devoted to one side. So I think the article should probably stay. Srnec (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now that you mention it, 1385 and 1387 are clearly different, so there's a significant problem here from the get-go; in turn, when looking for mentions of 1385 in that reportedly good article, I found little to corroborate that part of the lead, no mention of a war with Hungary other than a 1363 one, yet also a random WP:EGG link to an unrelated battle that year. --Joy (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec: What do you think about the title? I don't know much about 1300's geography but I do know Hungary existed then. Is "Slavonia, Dalmatia, and Croatia proper" Hungarian? North8000 (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the problem is that the main opponent related to the Kingdom of Hungary that Tvrtko seems to had encountered were the Dalmatian city-states. These were not terribly well integrated with their hinterland and had habitually shifted allegiances between the Eastern Roman Empire, Hungary, and Venice at the time. So it seems like it's not like there was a coherent army of Hungary and battles between them and the Bosnian army, which is what the average reader will expect from an article about a medieval war. At least we don't have this documented properly, that is. --Joy (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure the events have necessarily been so clearly defined elsewhere. The timeline of this source on page xxix lumps these events into a period of military conflicts between 1385-1390 for example. Dubrovnik: A History essentially places the events as occurring during an on-going civil war in Hungary (of which we currently have no article, and that Tvrtko was simply able to use the chaotic events to break away from Hungarian control.) Placed in that light, the events might be better covered on a broader picture of that civil war. This detailed account doesn't use such clearly defined terms, and looks at the events as spanning across a longer time frame (extending back to military conflict in 1384); although I am uncertain about the reliability of the publisher. This source, like many, discuss the events in context to the Battle of Kosovo. This older source refers to the wars of 1385 and 1390; showing a separation [11]. Clearly the events being discussed here should be covered in some fashion. I don't think the article as titled matches the historicity of the published literature on those events across a wider range of sources.4meter4 (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is highly productive, but I don't think I can find consensus here. It seems the (verified) content should be merged, perhaps?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as essentially WP:OR. Calling it a definable and isolated "war" is a stretch. I would consider these events part of a bigger Hungarian Civil War as described in Dubrovnik: A History (see my comment above for ref url) which began after the death of Louis I of Hungary in 1382. Essentially his death created a power vacuum as he had no male heir which led to a great deal of political instability and bloody series of military offenses involving multiple political opponents that included several different factions across the Kingdom of Hungary. Chief among these were Mary, Queen of Hungary, Sigismund of Luxembourg, Charles III of Naples, and Tvrtko I of Bosnia. When these events began Bosnia didn't even exist, and when Tvrtko became King in 1387 it was a result of this wider civil war, and Tvrtko's success of asserting independence during that war. The succeeding military campaigns in Dalmatia were a continuation of the rebellion that created the Kingdom of Bosnia, and, according to Dubrovnik: A History, these military events led by Tvrtko were done so under the support of Charles III of Naples (and after his death Ladislaus of Naples) who benefited from them in his power stuggle against Sigismund of Luxembourg and Mary, Queen of Hungary. In other words, it's all tied up together into a bigger power conflict in a Hungarian Civil War over Hungarian succession due to opposition to a woman sitting on the throne. Some of this is covered in Kingdom of Hungary (1301–1526)#New consolidation (1382–1437). We really could use an article on the broader civil war in Hungary of which the creation of Bosnia and the succeeding military incursions into Dubrovnik are a part. That is where this content belongs.4meter4 (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what are the possible WP:ATD? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is the best option. The title itself is OR and should not remain as even a REDIRECT because there is no such thing as the "Bosnian-Hungarian War (1387-1390)". We could draftify it under a new title about the Hungarian Civil War of that era; although it would be hard to define an exact end to that event. Charles III of Naples became king but was then assassinated by agents of Mary, Queen of Hungary. Ladislaus of Naples then got involved in events. Mary was in a tenuous spot until she married Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor. Probably their marriage would be the definitive end to the conflict because it filled the power vacuum, although one could argue the war ended when Mary was restored to power after Charles III was killed. However, the Court of Naples and Tvrtko continued to test and instigate conflict even after they married... so... The sources would obviously determine the scope. It would require research and time to determine that, hence why starting an article in draft space under a new title would be the only possible ATD.4meter4 (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it makes sense to cover this as a section in a broader article about the crisis in the Kingdom of Hungary at the time. This reminds me a bit of Candian War#War in Dalmatia, where we have a secondary theatre of operations of a large war, which is perfectly notable in its own right, covered by reliable sources and actually had a long-term impact on those regions, but is covered only in the larger context right now. --Joy (talk) 08:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It probably makes sense to collect information for this new article not only from here, but from our other articles, we have a lot of this scattered in the articles about Mary, Charles, Elizabeth, Tvrtko, Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić, Nikola Gorjanski, etc. --Joy (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Haidru (1828)

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete or redirect to Military campaigns of Hari Singh Nalwa. Out of the 5 sources on this page, only 2 are reliable; Hari Ram Gupta and Rishi Singh. The two other sources: "Journal of the United Service Institution of India" as well as "Selections from the records of the government of Punjab" are WP:RAJ era sources written in the 1800s, so under no circumstances can we use them. The last source is a Google books snapshot with no preview available either on Google books or anywhere else on the Internet. Such snapshots have been deprecated in the reliable sources noticeboard.

The coverage in both Hari Ram Gupta's and Rishi Singh's work, the extent of which are only small, singular paragraphs does not justify an entire Wikipedia article and fails Wikipedia's standards for notability-[12] Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Islam, Sikhism, and Pakistan. Skynxnex (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: if an event has 2 reliable independent sources with significant coverage that is enough to presume notability per GNG. I don't see what the issue is here. I'd also note that WP:RAJ is just an essay and that it refers to the use of certain Raj-era sources to source content on the caste system. It does not mean that all such sources are can never be used for anything.

Jtrrs0 (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Jtrrs0:, I think there's a misunderstanding, the two reliable sources (Hari Rm Gupta and Rishi Singh) do not have significant coverage, hence my nomination for deletion. Both sources only have one small, vague paragraph that provides no in-depth details about the battle.

Here is what Hari Ram Gupta says of the battle: "Having failed at Peshawar, Sayyid Ahmad planned to seize Attock fort from the Sikhs. Its possession by him would automatically clear Hazara and Peshawar from the Sikhs, and it would open the gateway for the invasion of the Panjab. Khadi Khan of Hund secretly alerted the Sikh commander of the fort, and the plan fell through. Sayyid Ahmad, in anger attacked the village Haidru, and put to the sword all the inhabitants, both Hindus and Muslims. On hearing this news Hari Singh Nalwa suddenly appeared on the scene and massacred nearly three-fourths of Khalifa's Ghazis. Sayyid Ahmad managed to escape to the west of the Indus."

Rishi Singh says: "It appears that even when he seemed successful, Syed Ahmad began losing his control over the tribal leadership. Many tribal chiefs began betraying him. For instance, at the time of taking over the fort of Attock, Khadi Khan of Hund alerted the Sikh commander, Hari Singh Nalwa, who with his 20,000 men attacked Syed Ahmad’s forces and killed three-fourths of the Khalifa’s Ghazis".

As you can see the coverage in both sources fall well short of Wikipedia's SIGCOV requirements.

The rest of the sources were published in the 1800s and are simply far too old to use. WP:RAJ is an essay, but it's essentially a de facto policy and widely accepted norm in South Asian topic areas, even outside of caste topics. You can see through the reliable sources noticeboard that WP:RAJ sources are thoroughly deprecated and disallowed on Wikipedia-[13]. @RegentsPark:, an admin involved in SA topics, could also clarify, or you could take it up with him to confirm. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for the ping and the reply. I see. Re SIGCOV, I would agree. This doesn't necessarily seem like SIGCOV. Re WP:RAJ, I've had a quick glance at the discussion on the Noticeboard. To me it seems overkill to say that 1800s sources can never be used or must be used as primary sources. I accept that that should be the case re anthropological subjects but for everything? Seems excessive to me. Now, if the consensus is that they are never to be used for anything (would be grateful if RegentsPark could confirm) then I'll happily reconsider my position, but to my eyes that's excessive. Jtrrs0 (talk) 08:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Michni

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

None of the sources comply with WP:HISTRS. Rattan Singh Jaggi is a litterateur active in the Language department of his institution, with no educational background in history, and primarily specializes in the literary analysis of Sikh holy books and writing hagiographies based off them, as well as translating texts into Hindi and Punjabi. https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/gurmat-scholar-dr-jaggi-chosen-for-padma-shri-8405050/ He is also used as the inline citation for the infobox which makes an astounding claim that 100 Sikhs defeated 5000 Afghans. Bobby Singh Bansal is a self proclaimed historian, with no educational training/credentials in history nor any peer reviewed books or journals or scholarly reviews of his work; his work was also self published (Hay House). The Punjabi Kosh is a vernacular source which also seems to be a hagiography. Autar Singh Sandhu is a WP:RAJ era source as it was written in 1935 and Sohan Singh Seetal is a poet and lyricist; both sources were also deprecated by an admin involved in South Asian topics. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 06:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Autar Singh Sandhu's book was explicitly deprecated by an admin here in the reliable sources noticeboard-[14]. "As Acroterion and Springee indicated, assessment of a source's reliability should take into account a multitude of factors. For example, the Nalwa book is likely an unacceptable source because of its age (1935), publisher, and lack of academic reviews and peer-reviewed articles written by its author (at least I didn't find any on a quick search). The author holding "only" an MA would be the least of the concerns because during the 1930s the PhD degree was not as well-established as it is now and many recognized experts and academics lacked it." Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, Afghanistan, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After relinquishing sources that are either poor or fail WP:V and in non-english language, two sources by historians Autar Singh Sandhu and Bobby Singh Bansal look OK to me where both pass WP:HISTRS. I cannot tell if Bansal is self proclaimed historian from what little quick research I found on him. Raj era is if it's written by Britons or Briton diplomats and administrators or under the guidance and review of Briton administrators. Some of these are like Lepel Griffin, Michael MacAuliffe, Sir John Withers McQueen. I found a source by Autar Singh Sandhu published in 1987 that too has coverage on this event on page 79 of book [15], General Hari Singh Nalwa: Builder of the Sikh Empire. Many other historians like Tahir Kamran, Ian Talbot, have depended on Autar Singh Sandhu's secondary works where they used his book General Hari Singh Nalwa: Builder of the Sikh Empire (New Delhi: Uppal Publishing House, 1987). Bobby Singh Bansal has too been depended upon by same historians and more like Himadri Banerjee and William Dalrymple, including academic professors of social sciences and Humanities, Anjali Roy and journalists like Anita Anand. RangersRus (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Expected as much from you. Bobby Singh Bansal by no means passes WP:HISTRS, he has zero educational background or training in history, nor does he have any peer reviewed books or journals to his name. His books were all self published. In fact, his current profession is a city councillor. This article makes it abundantly clear that the term "historian" was a self conferred title based on interests as opposed to any educational background.

Autar Singh Sandhu did not publish any book in 1987, the Google Books link your provided is not Autar Singh Sandhu's original work, but rather a reprint by a different publisher. Google Book links are also known to be notoriously unreliable with publication dates. And it seems exceedingly unlikely that someone who wrote a book in 1935-[16], would then write another book on the same subject, 54 years later. There is hardly any information available about Autar Singh Sandhu, apart from the fact that he wrote one book in 1935 about Hari Singh Nalwa; thoroughly unreliable. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Historians like Tahir Kamran, Ian Talbot, have depended on Autar Singh Sandhu's secondary works where they used his book General Hari Singh Nalwa: Builder of the Sikh Empire (New Delhi: Uppal Publishing House, 1987). Bobby Singh Bansal has too been depended upon by same historians and more like Himadri Banerjee and William Dalrymple, including academic professors of social sciences and Humanities, Anjali Roy and journalists like Anita Anand. RangersRus (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anjali Roy commented on Bansal's documentary, which was not related to historical claims, but rather on the Sikhs in Afghanistan who recently immigrated to the UK. Himadri Banarjee cited a newspaper column written by Bansal, not his books-[17]. You must also be aware that even if a source is used as reference in a reliable secondary source, it does not automatically make that source reliable by association, it must be judged on its own merits; Khafi Khan is cited hundreds of times in various books, but he cannot be used as a source on Wikipedia for example. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 12:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
don't know who Khafi Khan is but if not a secondary source or from 20th century and beyond then inarguably Khafi Khan would be unreliable but not the ones in discussion here. RangersRus (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read WP:HISTRS carefully. "Historical scholarship is generally not: Popular works that were not reviewed, especially works by journalists, or memoirs" as well the section "What is "recent" scholarship in history?". In the case of Autar Singh Sandhu, an admin has already determined that 1935 is far too old coupled with the lack of academic reviews and scholarly works by the author. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jadunath Sarkar sources are used that are as old and its because historians today depend on his secondary work and it is same case with Sandhu. RangersRus (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few cites in later books is nowhere near a mitigating factor since scholarly books cite a large corpus of all sorts of work nor does it prove that historians relied on him in any substantive manner. If that was the case, entering Autar Singh Sandhu's name on the Internet would return far more in depth details and reviews of his work as is the case for Jadunath Sarkar who has an entire Britannica article dedicated to him, as opposed to one Internet archive link to a book. If you insist he is reliable; please provide at the very least one actual scholarly review of his work or at least one other book he authored outside of Hari Singh Nalwa.Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sandhu is in bibliography and notes of other historians. Maybe not wide known like Jadunath Sarkar but in wikipedia you can use scholarly works where possible and if scholarly works are unavailable, the highest quality commercial or popular works can be used. I have my vote and let's give others space to weigh in with votes too. RangersRus (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mentions in bibliographies is not included as a factor in WP:HISTRS, things like the educational background of the author, whether the work was published by an academic/scholarly institution, and scholarly reviews of the book (regardless of whether the source is an academic or popular work) are. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kesatuan Gurita

AfDs for this article:

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

Once again, I'd like to propose the deletion of this article. Initially, my awareness of this unit arose from its presence on Wikipedia, prompting me to contribute and expand it beyond its initial stub status. However, I encountered significant challenges due to the scarcity of available sources. A search yielded only around 9-10 books, all of which contained very similar information, suggesting a common source, likely the oldest among them. Furthermore, the information from these books has already been incorporated into the article, resulting in a mere three-sentence paragraph.

Moreover, my efforts to find reliable Indonesian-language sources proved unfruitful, despite the unit's affiliation with the Indonesian military. I expected to find references to it within documents from the Indonesian National Armed Forces or Indonesian Navy, or possibly in the archives of the National Archives of Indonesia if it held historical significance. However, my inquiries only led to wiki-like websites and forums, all drawing from the same pool of information found in the books.

While the term "gurita" (octopus) is commonly used within Indonesian navy contexts, associations with units such as the 5th Marine Infantry Battalion, which bears the nickname "Gurita Cakti," and naval special force task force known as Satgas Gurita, a military training codename for operations like hostage rescue, counterterrorism, and securing critical facilities (see 1 for reference), both appear unrelated to the unit in question.

Consequently, I am inclined to believe that this unit may be fictitious, with the information provided in the books possibly stemming from a misunderstanding or error. It's important to acknowledge that even reliable sources are not infallible. Ckfasdf (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Based on my limited research, I do think the unit truly existed. An article in RRI showed that the unit existed. Another news article that mentioned it are Jatim Network which is less reliable than RRI. However, I do realize that RRI may have taken the information from wrong sources as well - as it seems very odd that the unit is similar with Denjaka or Taifib but somehow get way less coverage. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 14:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SunDawn: I'm inclined to think that RRI might also have inaccurate information, considering it was only briefly mentioned in that article. And, the statement from RRI contradicts other sources, as it suggests that the unit is part of the Indonesian Marine Corps, while other sources in those books indicate that it is an Indonesian Navy Special Forces unit. Additionally, as you pointed out, it's quite unusual that we couldn't locate any dedicated coverage for this unit. Moreover, after looking into the regulations on armed forces organization throughout history, none of them mention anything about this unit, whereas they do mention other special forces units like Denjaka or Taifib. IMO, this is a case of WP:NPOSSIBLE, as there are few or no suitable sources that could be cited to expand this article. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking at Indonesian military documents today and it seems like "Kesatuan Gurita" is never mentioned everywhere. For instance, this document mentioned all others in passing - Denjaka, Taifib, and Kopaska - but not Gurita. I can see official documents about others but searches to Gurita give no information. The problem of this is that it is mentioned in books, thus the unit is not entirely fictional. It is possible that at some point Gurita existed but it is merged or renamed to other unit. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 07:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SunDawn: The absence of any mention of the unit "Kesatuan Gurita" in official Indonesian armed forces or navy sources raises doubts about its existence. This unit is only referenced in approximately 9-10 books, which all provide similar information. However, the lack of corroborating evidence suggests a potential misunderstanding or misinterpretation by the authors, possibly due to the unfamiliarity of the terminology to non-native speakers of Indonesian. It's plausible that they confused "Kesatuan Gurita" with the legitimate military task force "Satgas Gurita" (an abbreviation of "Satuan Tugas Gurita"), as mentioned earlier. And, especially considering that the word of "Kesatuan" is unheard of in Indonesian military terminology, with the word of "Satuan" being the more commonly used term.Ckfasdf (talk) 08:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Organic unit

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

Unreferenced stub, with a request for references since 2011. One broken footnote to a general search. My BEFORE suggests this is a generic term used in various fields, and I can't confirm that there is a specific use of this in military. Our article fails WP:OR, WP:GNG and WP:V. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. I created the article because I came across the term in a military context and had some difficulty figuring out what it meant, so wanted to make things easier for the next person. The term isn't uniquely military (I guess it falls under 2b at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/organic) but I can't remember the last time I saw it used outside the military context.

I didn't have the knowledge to create more than a stub, and was hoping people with more of a military background might expand on that. Evidently that didn't happen. I have no objections to deletion if nobody has an appetite to expand it. Calair (talk) 07:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Italian Wikipedia article from the inter-language links looks quite comprehensive with a total of 80 references. Left guide (talk) 11:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Left guide True, but it may well be about something totally different. it:Organica militare is interwiki'd to Military organization, and by that logic, "organic unit" is just a synonym for military unit perhaps? Errr, @Gitz6666, any thoughts? I can't think of anyone else, could ask for comment at WT:ITALY I guess? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that it.wiki article fully corresponds to military unit. Apparently organic unit is a generic concept and most uses are not related to military organisation, so maybe we could create a redirect from "Organic unit (military)" to "military unit". There are some occurances in the field of military studies and organisation, e.g., this 1953 U.S. Army Reserve regulation, "Organic unity. – A unit assigned to and forming an integral part of a military organization". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should have an article on the concept of military unit, which would be the common name. We could also consider a move of what we have, but WP:TNT might be a better approach? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merging into the Commands, formations, and units section of military organization, with a redirect, might be the best approach. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The term is actually pretty common in US military stuff, and normally refers to a smaller unit that's permanently assigned to a larger unit. So the 1st MP Company would be considered organic to the 1st Infantry Division. Official histories use the term quite often. Intothat darkness 14:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The term is widely used, and was easy to add a reference to. So WP:OR, WP:GNG and WP:V are not issues. The issue as I see is that it is unlikely to be much more than what is there now. If that is enough for an article, then it can be kept. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, nobody wants to keep, so this is probably going to be deleted if nobody can come up with an alternative such as merging or redirecting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one has voted to delete, either. Since it's a widely used term, deleting it makes little sense. I'd say Weak Keep at this time. Intothat darkness 18:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Intothatdarkness Can you offer a rationale better than WP:ITSPOPULAR? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean Wikipedia:POPULARPAGE? GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a standard military term, commonly used in official histories to describe subordinate units that are part of a larger unit's organizational structure as opposed to a unit that's attached for a particular operation. Its use is easily confirmed, so the original delete rationale doesn't make much sense. @Hawkeye7 commented on this as well. Intothat darkness 11:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be a redirect to a suitable glossary article? GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Castellón

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

No refs on the page for many years. I'm not seeing a way to verify the information and it seems way beyond the point where there needs to be verified information from RS to keep the page JMWt (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Spain. JMWt (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As one might expect, there are adequately referenced articles in other language Wikipedias. These references from https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batalla_de_Castell%C3%B3_d%27Emp%C3%BAries might be helpful:
- Minali, Guillelmo. Historia militar de Gerona, que comprende particularmente los dos sitios de 1808 y 1809 (en castellà). A. Figaró, 1840, p.59-60.
- «1-1-1809 Sorpresa de Castellón» (en castellà). www.1808-1814.org. [Consulta: 16 agost 2011].
- Ferrer, Raymundo. Barcelona cautiva, ó sea Diario exacto de lo ocurrido en la misma ciudad mientras la oprimieron los Franceses, esto es, desde el 13 de Febrero de 1808 hasta el 28 de Mayo de 1814 Acompañta a los principios de cada mes una Idea del estado religiosa-politico-militar de Barcelona y Cataluña (en castellà). Brusi, 1816, p. vol.3, p.94.
- Crusafont i Sabater, Miquel. Medalles commemoratives dels Països Catalans i de la Corona catalano-aragonesa: (S. XV-XX). Institut d'Estudis Catalans, 2006, p.152. ISBN 8472838641. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok please use these refs to verify all the claims on the page and remove anything unsupported per WP:V

I'm interested in seeing what these references actually support on the topic. JMWt (talk) 11:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the sources @Eastmain: found cover the battle well enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtrrs0 (talk • contribs) 16:31, April 3, 2024 (UTC)
Keep per applied sources. BusterD (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135)

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

Fails GNG and NEVENT. Nothing found from WP:IS WP:RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Article is sourced mainly from a medieval chronicle. Other sources either fail WP:RS or are brief mentions. Nothing with SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 01:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Poland, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but ugh. The topic may be notable, but the execution is terrible from the sourcing perspective (medieval sources plus some passing mentions in modern newspaper and minor websites). That said, the article is likely essentially correct - as in, it is not a hoax, RS do confirm there was a Ruthenian raid on Poland that year that burned the town of Wiślica. Here's a good reference [18]. Here's another: [19]. It is rather unforunate that the creator was blocked rather than given a probatory sentence and tasked with verifying their low quality sources with better ones. Overall, while the current sourcing, well, sucks, the topic is likely notable. Sigh - we have dozens of articles from that editor to review, with similar quality of sourcing (ex. [[Polish raid on Kievan Rus' (1136)]). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sidenote: @TimothyBlue - how's your Polish / Russian? Are you seriously expecting to find any significant sourcing about this kind of historical event in English? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, complete OR based on the lecture of medieval chronicles. While the raid on Wiślica most likey was a historical event, the circumstances are unclear and only described by Kadłubek. I doubt if the topic is WP:NOTABLE, it seems that mention in related articles (Piotr Włostowic, Bolesław III Wrymouth etc.) should be enough. If not removed the article should be rewritten and moved to Wincenty Kadłubek tale about raid on Wiślica; because it's a tale, not historical record. Marcelus (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcelus Did you look at https://ingremium.pl/index.php/IG/article/view/292 ? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my opinion is based on this article. Marcelus (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcelus Well, IMHO that article demonstrates the topic is notable. Destruction (sack) of Wiślica is not challenged by historians AFAIK. We might consider whether the article should not be rewritten into one about that event (battle), but to delete it I think is going to far. It is not a WP:HOAX and if there is WP:OR IMHO it does not raise to the point we need to WP:TNT this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Destruction of Wiślica probably happened, but it doesn't mean the event is notable enough to deserve a separate article, unless it will be about narratives about the event. Marcelus (talk) 08:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 07:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Military Proposed deletions[edit]

The following articles have been tagged for proposed deletion:

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

Current PRODs

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

Military-related Images and media for Deletion[edit]

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

None at present

Military-related Miscellany for deletion[edit]

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

Military-related Templates for Deletion[edit]

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

None at present

Military-related Categories for Discussion[edit]

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

Military-related Redirects for Deletion[edit]

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

Military-related Possibly Unfree Files[edit]

None at present

Military-related Speedy Deletion[edit]

The following military-related Speedy Deletions are currently open:

None at present

Military-related Deletion Review[edit]

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

None at present

Military-related Requests for Undeletion[edit]

None at present

Military-related material at other deletion processes[edit]

None at present

Military related deletions on Commons[edit]

None at present