Svoboda | Graniru | BBC Russia | Golosameriki | Facebook
Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Military history
WikiProject
Main project page + talk
News & open tasks
Academy
Core work areas
Assessment
Main page
 → A-Class FAQ
 → B-Class FAQ
 → A-Class review requests
 → Assessment requests
 → Current statistics
 → Review alert box
Contests
Main page
 → Contest entries
 → Scoring log archive
 → Scoreboard archive
Coordination
Main page + talk
 → Handbook
 → Bugle newsroom talk
 → ACM eligibility tracking
 → Discussion alert box
Incubator
Main page
 → Current groups and initiatives
Special projects
Majestic Titan talk
Member affairs
Membership
Full list talk
 → Active / Inactive
 → Userboxes
Awards
Main page talk
 →A-Class medals
 →A-Class crosses
 → WikiChevrons w/ Oak Leaves
Resources
Guidelines
Content
Notability
Style
Templates
Infoboxes
 → Command structure doc · talk
 → Firearm cartridge doc · talk
 → Military award doc · talk
 → Military conflict doc · talk
 → Military installation doc · talk
 → Military memorial doc · talk
 → Military person doc · talk
 → Military unit doc · talk
 → National military doc · talk
 → Military operation doc · talk
 → Service record doc · talk
 → Militant organization doc · talk
 → Weapon doc · talk
Navigation boxes doc · talk
 → Campaignboxes doc · talk
Project banner doc · talk
Announcement & task box
 → Discussion alert box
 → Review alert box
Template design style doc · talk
Showcase
Featured articles 1443
Featured lists 149
Featured topics 32
Featured pictures 534
Featured sounds 69
Featured portals 5
A-Class articles 685
A-Class lists 40
Good articles 5,420
Automated lists
Article alerts
Most popular articles
New articles
Nominations for deletion
Task forces
General topics
Fortifications
Intelligence
Maritime warfare
Military aviation
Military culture, traditions, and heraldry
Military biography
Military historiography
Military land vehicles
Military logistics and medicine
Military memorials and cemeteries
Military science, technology, and theory
National militaries
War films
Weaponry
Nations and regions
African military history
Asian military history
Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history
Balkan military history
Baltic states military history
British military history
Canadian military history
Chinese military history
Dutch military history
European military history
French military history
German military history
Indian military history
Italian military history
Japanese military history
Korean military history
Middle Eastern military history
Nordic military history
North American military history
Ottoman military history
Polish military history
Roman and Byzantine military history
Russian, Soviet and CIS military history
South American military history
South Asian military history
Southeast Asian military history
Spanish military history
United States military history
Periods and conflicts
Classical warfare
Medieval warfare
Early Muslim military history
Crusades
Early Modern warfare
Wars of the Three Kingdoms
American Revolutionary War
Napoleonic era
American Civil War
World War I
World War II
Cold War
Post-Cold War
Related projects
Blades
Espionage
Firearms
Pritzker Military Museum & Library
Piracy
Ships
edit · changes
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Military. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Military|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Military. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

Military and combat[edit]

List of battles involving Sweden[edit]

List of battles involving Sweden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very cluttered, and serves no real purpose, there is a category for battles involving Sweden for a reason. Gvssy (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of battles by geographic location #Sweden - I disagree with the OP's reasoning, as the page is useful and could be expanded to include useful information, similar to pages like List of battles involving Georgia (country). However, there isn't much to gain by having an entirely separate page devoted to it, as there aren't enough battles to do so, so a redirect is preferable. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 18:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have corrected this nomination to reflect that the article was intended nominated, not the talk page. Normally I would not do this, preferring to procedurally close this and equally-procedurally formally nominate the article, but before I or anyone else could do that Politicdude legitimately presented their opinion regarding an alternative to deletion so there is no reason to fracture this discussion (and the article does have an AfD tag waiting, anyway). Apologies if any of this is out-of-process in any way. (No opinion or further comment at this time.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1958 East Pakistan-India border clash[edit]

1958 East Pakistan-India border clash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Still fails WP:N. It is yet another skirmish with no lasting impact. This new creation is itself 80% copy of the earlier article which was deleted after the last AfD. There is no change in the sourcing. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What should be done to the article to prevent deletion? And, there was another article similar to this, that was deleted? Clarify. User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (User talk:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet) (Talk of Georgethedragonslayer) 6:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Obersturmmann[edit]

Obersturmmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nom; a malformed PROD with rationale This does not seem important enough to warrant its own page. Indeed, on the German language wiki, this information is merely included on the SA page. was removed. I don't see sufficient sourcing, but would not be surprised if sourcing exists. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of armed conflicts between Bosnia and Serbia[edit]

List of armed conflicts between Bosnia and Serbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is on the face of it a violation of our policy on improper synthesis, these were wars fought between vastly different entities across different time periods, political systems, etc. Not every battle of e.g. the Ottoman Empire that had been located in or near Bosnia constitutes a "battle of Bosnia + adversary", because the term "Bosnia" (or indeed adversary, Serbia) is used as if it was a coherent entity at the time, which it typically wasn't, as it was usually an occupation or a vasselage situation of some kind. I don't know if it can be rewritten to be actually fine, and I frankly do not trust the quote-less referencing from the newbie user that I already had to warn about sourcing at User talk:Vedib#Introduction to contentious topics. It was passed through AfC but it shouldn't survive AfD as is. Joy (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia. Joy (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I should also note that the claims the list captions make are sometimes downright bizarre. Like Ottoman-Bosnian victory and Bosniak population in Podrinje massacred under First Serbian Uprising - this is both casually dismissing elementary facts of the situation, that these conflicts were between the Ottoman Empire and its subjects at the time, definitely not just Bosnia and Serbia as such; and it's making a point of listing massacres in some sort of a grief porn kind of way. It's really below the standard of an encyclopedia. --Joy (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Defense of Kopanki[edit]

Defense of Kopanki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The whole article is based on WP:PRIMARY document prepared by OUN: https://avr.org.ua/viewDoc/2785/. Author of the article also omitted massacre of Polish inhabitants of Kopanki that happened the day before on April 10. I think it's quite important context.

In general, there are no reliable information about described events, I wasn't able to find anything in avaiable monographies. Marcelus (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete immediately, this article cannot be allowed to remain, it is based on some UPA chronicle what is it anyway? Such a source will not be acceptable due to such as lying UPA documents often on which the book is based. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 07:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Interesting topic but needs independent sources to establish notability and verify facts. Right now this seems sourced significantly to old wartime reports and documents (WP:PRIMARY? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marshal of the Sri Lanka Air Force[edit]

Marshal of the Sri Lanka Air Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Sri_Lanka_Air_Force Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In Sri Lanka, the rank of Marshal of the Air Force is not notable, and only one person has got the rank, the Sri Lankan TV media and newspapers do not have important news regarding the man who has been awarded with the rank. In the Wikipedia article, the rank insignia is British Royal Air Force's insignia. Hamwal (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kheibar Shekan[edit]

Kheibar Shekan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about an Iranian ballistic missile. The article is clearly written from a fan or someone with a pecuniary or otherwise disallowed interest in the matter, which violates WP:NPOV. Alongside this, the article relies on Persian sources, which would challenge WP:MOS. These sources are biased and the majority are from Iranian state-sponsored news sources and agencies, and the author had designed it this way. The article also has a large amount of grammatical and otherwise errors. I would have liked for the article to remain with a NPOV and grammatically correct form, however at this point I believe that it is too far gone. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article's tone is a little odd, but it's okay to like missiles. Also, googling the subject immediately gives a number of reliable sources, which are also in English:
Current article may be bad but if it's bad enough to delete the article can honestly just be blanked and restarted as a stub. Maybe delete everything cited to state-sponsored news, condense the rest, and leave it at that? Mrfoogles (talk) 09:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may be OK to like missiles, I do myself, however that isn't a justification for failing WP:NPOV? DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 09:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. carrier strike group tactics[edit]

U.S. carrier strike group tactics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's a claim on the talk page that the article is based on a computer game guide that preceeds the history of the page, hence there is a potential copyright infringement. I can't access the source, but perhaps others will be better able to assess the claim. I note other unresolved maintainence issues. Klbrain (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Tone is not encyclopedic. Poorly sourced. Any necessary information could be easily folded into carrier strike group or Naval tactics. I looked at the source that User:Some Harp user provided on the talk page as the source material. It seems similar in tone and topics, although at a quick review I couldn't identify any direct quotes lifted. Also noting that there is no indication of when this information is from. Is this how strike groups work now or 30 years ago (when the game manual was written) or some other time? These problems have existed with the article for over 20 years so likely aren't going to be resolved anytime soon. meamemg (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Comment My knee-jerk response to this article is "Cool!!" Now to read it with care... Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC) Okay, yeah, I see what you guys are talking about. Large parts of this article are redundant with content that is (I presume) better covered elsewhere, such as Battlespace. Good candidate for WP:TNT. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Army Public School, Jodhpur[edit]

Army Public School, Jodhpur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a relatively small secondary school with, as far as I can find, no obvious claim to notability. Others may be able to provide evidence of notability (and create links from other pages to deorphan this page). Newhaven lad (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Gdeszyn[edit]

Battle of Gdeszyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD |)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly referenced, only one source says that such a "battle" existed and moreover the source is completely biased for the Ukrainian side. No polish sources or books talk about such a Battle of Gdeszyn . Fajowy (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply[reply]

I support this article is based on one sentence from Volodymyr Viatrovich's book which talks about this battle and nothing more and he is considered even for pseudo-historic AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Interesting topic but needs independent sources to establish notability and verify facts. Right now this seems sourced significantly to old wartime reports and documents (WP:PRIMARY? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Denial of the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel[edit]

Denial of the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For similar reasons as the previous nomination. The page still does not address a notable subject and therefore fails WP:GNG. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 00:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into the parent. Quite so. It doesn't address a notable subject. The page largely revolves around and is organised based on one Washington Post piece, as broadcast loudly and proudly by its horribly unencyclopedic first sentence. "Denial" topics normally only emerge when supported by the weight of significant scholarship. What we have here is instead a collection of WP:NOTNEWS-flouting material, with one US news piece used as a washing line to string up a mixed bag of Israeli news pieces WP:COATRACK-style. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep but balance - It's currently skewed and opinionated, but it's a widely discussed topic that might warrant inclusion. It should possibly be expanded to include famine denial in the other direction. Denialism (and accusations of it) are closely related to misinformation, but not quite the same concept, so it doesn't fit as a section of that article to merge. MWQs (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I keep hearing about people denying that Hamas really did this or that Hamas really did that, mostly rumor-level, so my knee-jerk is that reliable sourcing for an article on this subject probably exists, either under its current subject or refocused to conspiracy theories about the 2023-2024 Israel-Gaza conflict more generally. Per MWQ, I'd be willing to vote keep if we have even one Wikipedian who volunteers to do the considerable work of making the necessary improvements. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Seems reliable enough sourcing. Needs some rework, its hard to read in some places in its current form. The background section should probably just be an excerpt from the original article. A lot more quotes than necessary too.
Of which article? gidonb (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would say "merge", but the content of the article is somewhat indiscriminately written, and I don't think it really belongs anywhere. It is citing all kinds of silly stuff like "some people on Reddit said something dumb" -- #wow #whoa. In March 2024 the Israeli firm CyberWell, which uses artificial intelligence (AI) to monitor, analyze and combat antisemitism on social media sounds like it fell off the back of a press kit -- frankly, half the stuff in here sounds like that. We should not just be directly regurgitating stuff we find in PDFs on think tanks' websites about the malnarrative playbook or whatever. jp×g🗯️ 09:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG. Not sure why this was nominated again. There are about 50 references in Hewiki. This means that the subject has been well-covered. There is also legislation to mitigate this denial. The Enwiki article relies heavily on one reference but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Objecting also to the proposed content drift, suggested above. gidonb (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bogucice[edit]

Battle of Bogucice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD |)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly referenced, only one source says that such a "battle" existed and moreover the source is completely biased for the Ukrainian side. No polish sources or books talk about such a battle in Bogucice. Olek Novy (talk) 08:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the article should be removed because of the controversy, the source on which the article is based is "Volodymyr Viatrovich" considered to be an unreliable historian who tried to cover up the Volhyn massacre and I am in favour of removing the article, as well as this article Battle of Gdeszyn and that Defense of Kopanki. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Battle of Maikop[edit]

Battle of Maikop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Likely an unedited machine translation. No significant coverage in reliable sources - the existing citations are all primary sources, helping to explain the army-size exaggerations. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the document of the Russian military historical archive is not specified correctly, and cannot be verified through the archive, the article really needs to be deleted for lack of sources Dushnilkin (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hung Cao[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Hung Cao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page was previously deleted because the subject is non-notable and does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG, this has not changed since and there has been no new coverage significant enough to make him notable. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 21:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NathanBru (talk)

  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject seems to meet WP:GNG§WP:SIGCOV guidelines through his major political party nomination in two national elections and the coverage of him in the interim with a decent amount of coverage in foreign media. WP:POLITICIAN reads "being...an unelected candidate for political office...does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline". WP:ROTM § Political candidates is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and even it does not preclude articles for non-incumbent candidates if GNG standards are met. —  AjaxSmack  01:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While ROTM is not a policy or guideline, it gives the condition that The person was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for other reasons as it is. So, not just meeting GNG for the election coverage itself like you seem to imply. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Vietnam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is a US Senator candidate, covered in a lot of articles. Thus, saying that he is not well-known is a weak view. People may need to search for more details about him to have a better decision in the election or for other reasons. I think content about him as a politician will increase significantly in the near future. Given that he has some possibility to be a senator in the near future, deletion of his page at the moment is not a good choice. Zenms (talk) 05:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. Fails on WP:NPOL as he hasn't been elected. Creator can draftify and if he gets elected can update (removing articles he wrote used as sources) and reinstate it Mztourist (talk) 08:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • ​​WP:NPOL reads any subject "can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline". That's the argument here. Falling back on a rote interpretation of WP:NPOL makes life easy (and I opposed this article in the previous AfD on that basis), but it is not a faithful interpretation of GNG which calls for "significant coverage". On the one hand, all 100 of Virginia's state delegates have articles pro forma, but by and large fail GNG (e.g. Barry Knight, Alex Askew) and on the other hand we have a subject here who is a far more significant political figure, has been a serious major party candidate twice (with coverage of his sometimes unusual statements and questionable actions in the interim) and has been the sole subject of numerous articles in national publications. —  AjaxSmack  15:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has been very notable domestically, and I have seen a few sources internationally mentioning him as well. He made big headlines in 2022, and has been generating many large headlines from numerous large media corporations about his candidacy for US Senate. 1980RWR (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This should be redirected to 2024 United States Senate election in Virginia as he is not notable at this time based on our understanding of GNG, current political candidates, and WP:POLOUTCOMES "Candidates who are running or unsuccessfully ran for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having presumptive notability and are often deleted or merged ... into articles detailing the specific race in question, such as 2010 United States Senate election in Nevada." That said, I have come to the conclusion that it is rarely worth the effort to debate US Senatorial candidates who have won their major party's primary during the period between the primary and the general election. There are editors who suggest that just being a nominee is sufficient for an article, despite there being no policy or guideline asserting this view. So, at this point, I think it is better to use the editing process from keeping these articles from becoming repositories of campaign brochures (or a series of political statements or positions) and refrain from bringing these cases to AFD until the election. --Enos733 (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • ​I'm curious about your opinion on a couple of points. Firstly, though "candidate...are not viewed as having presumptive notability", do you think a candidate can be notable on WP:SIGCOV merits on a case-by-case basis? Secondly, you say we should "refrain from bringing these cases to AFD until after the election", but I would argue that losing an election cannot remove notability; conversely if Hung Cao is going to be non-notable after losing, then he's not notable now either and the article should be deleted now per WP:NOTNEWS. Should articles be permitted to exist only for a campaign period? (I'm asking this seriously and not trying to be argumentative.) —  AjaxSmack  15:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I do think that a candidate (who is not already notable) can pass WP:SIGCOV as a candidate, but in my mind this is a very high bar, usually with substantial international coverage (see Christine O'Donnell), but could be demonstrated in other ways, such as academic writings, notable documentaries, or similar coverage after the campaign is completed. I think that many political candidates are low profile individuals and the coverage they receive is for their participation in WP:BIO1E one event. As to the second question, my position is that it grows increasingly difficult to hold a AFD (in the US) the closer we get to election day, especially with US Senate candidates who are nominated by either the Republican or Democratic parties. Because notability is not temporary, we should be careful with our assessment of notability, especially of political candidates who may not pass a ten-year test of significance and may quickly fade back to obscurity. All of this is why I think the pages about the campaign can be expanded to discuss the race, the candidates, and the issues. - Enos733 (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I would also say that it is possible that a candidate that has a weak claim to pass GNG prior to the campaign could meet our notability standards with coverage of the campaign. But in this scenario, we would be looking for at least one substantive source prior to the candidate filing for office. - Enos733 (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. I like your idea that "the pages about the campaign can be expanded to discuss the race, the candidates, and the issues". Many of those "articles" largely resemble machine-generated lists of figures. I agree that many losing candidates in single elections are like WP:BIO1E cases, but in this case you have a major-party candidate performing well in two different elections. There comes a point where something can render a candidate notable during or between campaigns, but I'm not quite sure where the line is. (In an extreme case, if a candidate shot an irate debate watcher during a campaign, it would make the candidate notable even if the shooting without that political context wasn't notable.) What bothers me is the lack of judgement that results in four-sentence (non-)articles for non-notable incumbents like this and this while suppressing articles on non-incumbents who have received widespread, sustained news coverage. I support general rules to control the number of articles, but there should be leeway for exceptions that rests on the spirit and not just the letter of these rules. —  AjaxSmack  16:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Those incumbents are notable, though, though Will Davis is very hard to search for. They just have underdeveloped articles, and those articles may not ever be a featured article, but they don't fail GNG. Senate candidates face a massive recentism and a "you can't make yourself notable" problem, and at some point, we do keep failed perennial candidates. SportingFlyer T·C 16:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      For the record, I was able to find several good sources about Rep. Davis. - Enos733 (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      He simply has a very common name. SportingFlyer T·C 15:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      NPOL defers to the GNG in the case of unelected candidates. I'm just not sure how Hung Cao doesn't meet GNG with the number and quality of citations already in the article. It contrasts starkly with Davis et al who would fail GNG in most other situations but who gets an ex officio a free pass by NPOL. —  AjaxSmack  02:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There are lots of material about elected federal and state legislators. And, there is an extensive public record of legislators votes and speeches. There is also some real-world considerations as well - as there is value to readers to know who is passing legislation. - Enos733 (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2024 United States Senate election in Virginia as a viable alternative to outright deletion. Per nom. and others, currently fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. No prejudice against restoring the full article if he wins the general election or eventually gains enough RS coverage to pass WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet GNG. I would support a redirect as mentioned. Intothatdarkness 14:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment: I would also be fine with a redirect to 2024 United States Senate election in Virginia. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 15:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Extensive reliable sources. It's been the practice of Wikipedia to have articles for first-time US Senate candidates with a lot of reliable sources ever since 2020 when the AfD for Theresa Greenfield was overturned. -LtNOWIS (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I really disagree with the belief that U.S. Senate nominees in competitive states should be considered automatically notable. They seem notable at the time, but if/when they lose, it becomes evident that they are not. I mean really, is anyone searching for Theresa Greenfield anymore? I don't think Hung Cao is notable enough outside of this election. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the current election as a viable ATD or delete - being an unelected candidate anywhere does not guarantee notability, and keeping a page up in case an election is won violates our policy that once you're notable, you're always notable, as some !keep articles have mentioned. I also disagree there's any sort of an exception for American senate candidates as they can be adequately covered on the page for the election. SportingFlyer T·C 16:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6 Engineer Squadron[edit]

6 Engineer Squadron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article does not seem to be notable. There is a lack of independent references provided. PercyPigUK (talk) 11:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As one would expect for such an old unit, there's numerous references to the unit in the media throughout the wars. Even a 1946 book, and discussion in numerous other books about operations in both World Wars as they participated in battles like Vimy Ridge and on Juno Beach on D-Day. The German execution of three captured prisoners (2 from this unit) at the hands of Wilhelm Mohnke in 1944 gets media attention, such as ProQuest 239462705 and also discussed in a book.

Gazetted officer (India)[edit]

Gazetted officer (India) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominated by IP 117.230.88.202 as follows: Not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", hence fails WP:GNG. It violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY as listing all gazetted designations are NOT within the scope of an encyclopedic article as it is not a directory or manual. The article predominantly consists original research, with references that barely support it. Legodesk.com fails WP:RS. (end quote) - UtherSRG (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Yang Dang Khum[edit]

Battle of Yang Dang Khum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unlike WP:Articles for deletion/Thai bombing of Phnom Penh, this one doesn't appear to be a hoax, but the creator's editing pattern suggests that the text is AI-generated, with fake citations (which I have removed) that do not support any of the facts. This will need to be blown up and entirely rewritten to comply with verifiability requirements. Paul_012 (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dobley missile strike[edit]

Dobley missile strike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to American military intervention in Somalia (2007–present). One of hundreds of airstrikes conducted in Somalia. Fails WP:GNG to stand on its own. Sourcing is routine news coverage and not WP:SUSTAINED. Longhornsg (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This is the only Tommahawk missile strike to have occurred during the Somali civil war, it therefore is clearly notable enough to stand on its own.XavierGreen (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laboratory Response Network[edit]

Laboratory Response Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:RS. Redirect to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, of which it is a part. Longhornsg (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is additional support for a Keep, Redirect or Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al Qaeda Network Exord[edit]

Al Qaeda Network Exord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of a New York Times article in 2008, one of thousands of unremarkable exords that the U.S. military executes every years. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. Longhornsg (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge with War on terror.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion of the United States[edit]

Invasion of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has substantial issues including general copy-editing, severe lack of sources for much of what is stated, and is a general mishmash of actual "invasions", speculative ideas about potential invasions, and (until recent edits) covering completely non-related topics such as nuclear and cyberattacks.

Believe article should be moved to draft given the significant levels of issues. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and United States of America. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Even with the nom's rightful removal of sci-fi cryptofacist fanfiction that took the article completely off the rails, this article is in need of serious help and sourcing, maybe even an entirely new title. As is, 'invasion' is doing very heavy lifting here, as only Pearl Harbor and Imperial Army attempts to get to the mainland during WWII could really be considered as such. Nate • (chatter) 00:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A reasonable person could absolutely make the case that putting all these disparate events into one article isn't WP:OR, but it feels like OR to me. The burning of DC during the War of 1812 and Pearl Harbor and the start of the Mexican-American War are all important events that should (and do) have their own coverage, but putting them all together without directly addressing that they are in most respects very different events seems like the passive suggestion of a connection that may not be merited in fact or sourcing. I think it's possible to write an article that is not subject to this problem, but it would look very different from this one. Off the top of my head, it's that "invasion" suggests that one party was the aggressor, and the relationships between America-Britain, America-Mexico, and America-Japan right before the invasion events were all very different. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can see no purpose in draftifying; this article is a mess of pure WP:SYNTH. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fine as a category. In theory "Invasions of the United States" could be something, but better to start from scratch. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As currently written, this is probably a WP:COATRACK. Nevertheless, I would be inclined to keep, but make it as a List page. As of note, we have a disambig. page Invasion USA. My very best wishes (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Serves no real purpose. Way too much SYNTH. Also, the redirect has nothing to do with this page. It's referencing movie titles and a single album. Intothatdarkness 19:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special Security Office[edit]

Special Security Office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete or merge into classified information in the United States. WP:NOTDICTIONARY, fails WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Operational Intelligence Watch Officer's Network[edit]

National Operational Intelligence Watch Officer's Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG from lack of WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Longhornsg (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, an example of WP:Ignore all rules. The page already has a couple of sources, and one does not expect extensive coverage in newspapers etc. Assuming that this list is correct, it has a relevant encyclopedic role so should be left. I note that there appear to be several other security related pages nominated for AfD by the same editor. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that this is encyclopedically relevant. I looked around for another article it could be housed at instead, to see if there was a good merge argument, but we don't appear to have any central "watch center", "national security watch center" or similar article. -- asilvering (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Security Operations Center[edit]

National Security Operations Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to National Security Agency. Watch center not inherently notable on its own per WP:PAGEDECIDE. Longhornsg (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Our article on the NSA says As of 2013, NSA has about a dozen directorates, which are designated by a letter, although not all of them are publicly known. It looks like the correct place for this information would be Directorates of the National Security Agency. But that doesn't exist. We could redirect it per nom, but that would mean losing the information we have in this article. We could merge it there instead of simply redirecting, but the NSA article is already a large and difficult to navigate article - over 1000kb, 80kb of prose. Unless someone is prepared to do a lot of work here, and it doesn't look like anyone is going to step up in the AfD timeframe, I think it's best to leave this where it is. Call this a "!vote for no consensus", I guess. -- asilvering (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstfruits[edit]

Firstfruits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sustained, independent coverage in one article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. Longhornsg (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FASCIA (database)[edit]

FASCIA (database) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete or merge into National Security Agency. One of many databases used by the security agency. Fails WP:SUSTAINED and independent notability as a database separate from its use by the NSA and its inclusion in the global surveillance disclosures. Longhornsg (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Needs expansion, but here is a source from 2016. jp×g🗯️ 08:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TRIVIALMENTION, not WP:SIGCOV. Longhornsg (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KIV-7[edit]

KIV-7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete or merge into NSA encryption systems. Fails coverage in secondary WP:RS to establish WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7 Intelligence Company[edit]

7 Intelligence Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article contains one reference which is not from an independent source. The subject of the article does not appear to be notable. PercyPigUK (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Canada. PercyPigUK (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This unit is part of the Canadian Army Intelligence Regiment, part of the Canadian Intelligence Corps. Upmerge to Canadian Intelligence Corps. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This could also be said about the separate extant articles on 2, 3, 4, and 6 Intelligence Company though. Why single out just this one for being amalgamated up? Anecdotally, in terms of actual personnel numbers it's actually one of the largest of those five currently. 90% of the content of those other articles is just Intelligence Corps history, repurposed (the 2 Int entry reprints basically two other Wikipedia articles on Pickersgill and Macalister)... at least the 7 Intelligence Company entry is humble enough not to pad itself out with redundancy.
    It's also somewhat problematic that we've recently privileged the Canadian Intelligence Corps, which is currently a notional/paper organization with no responsibilities and zero staff of its own, with an article, over the Canadian Army Intelligence Regiment, the working unit which comprises most of the working military intelligence personnel in the Canadian Forces. While the names are similar, this construct makes more sense for the British Intelligence Corps. In the Canadian context it just looks silly. BruceR (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So the only arguments being proposed here are Deletion or a Merge to Canadian Intelligence Corps?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Just seems to me we've privileged all the other articles for exactly comparable things that engaged in shameless entry padding over the one article that didn't and kept itself factual. BruceR (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shafqat Baloch[edit]

Shafqat Baloch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject fails to meet the GNG. I don't see sig/in-depth coverage. While he received a military award, so have thousands of other soldiers, but that doesn't mean we should create biographies for all of them citing ANYBIO. Fwiw- the bio contains WP:OR , contains PROMO, is unsourced and flagged for copyvio as well. Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Saqib, I've readded some info removed over copyright after fixing it which goes into detail on his role in 65 war. Waleed (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no SIGCOV in RS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No coverage in depth based on any independent or reliable sources thus it discouraged me from opposing the idea of D-Prod.223.123.5.35 (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm sorry Saqib; although I share with you that this article exists in a terrible condition and has a plenty of WP:OR, we can't deny the fact that it passes WP:ANYBIO and should be kept. Nawaiwaqt has a detailed article of Shafqat Baloch dated 2 September 2019, although not much Nation reports his death in more than a paragraph. This should also be helpful. His role has had a significant impact, as well. signed, Aafi (talk) 07:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aafi, OK, I value your opinion, but I'd like to point out that the coverage in Nawaiwaqt is a column, an opinion piece, by guest columnist Aslam Lodhi and the coverage in the other sources is either routine or trivial mentions, none of which meet the GNG criteria. These sources can indeed be used for WP:V purposes but not suitable for establishing GNG, where the threshold is higher. Anyway, I don't have anything more to add on this. As for WP:ANYBIO, I've clarified my concerns above. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Saqib, thanks for adding these two cents. I did not say that these are enough for GNG but we have an established practice of SNGs and it is really not necessary that each and everything would pass GNG. Those that don't are finely evaluated by SNG practices of which ANYBIO is one. This subject has twice received a highest military award in their country and this is verified, and all that routine/minimal/short/whatever, information, is only helpful to support the claims. GNG is just impossible for everything, and as you say, nothing else needs to be said. If a thousand soldiers, authors or anyone else, pass any of our subjective criterias, it is really within our scope to have articles/short biographies of them created on this encyclopedia, or otherwise just collectively cancel all of these subjective criterias, if we don't want to. signed, Aafi (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:36, 3 July 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, Owen× ☎ 07:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second Battle of Robotyne[edit]

Second Battle of Robotyne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We do not need a page for every minor battle in this war. The bulk of the paragraph for the battle consisted of Russian Telegram links and ISW sources. The links to the ISW sources were dead, and I couldn't access which date the sources were coming from. The sources reporting the Russian capture of the town and second battle could easily be input into the page for Robotyne itself, as it doesn't have SIGCOV or notability in the sources mentioned to establish the second battle as it's own page.

I agree, since we never created page for first battle of Robotyne during 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive, but instead have a information in 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive and Robotyne pages so I don't think it will be necessary to create page for second battle of Robotyne either. Hyfdghg (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging @Super Dromaeosaurus, @Alexiscoutinho, @Cinderella157, @RadioactiveBoulevardier, and @RopeTricks as they're all active in pages regarding the invasion of Ukraine. Jebiguess (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, we don't need an article for every minor battle. We must weigh coverage against WP:NOTNEWS (routine coverage) when we are mainly confined to NEWSORG sources. Content is best placed at the town's article and potentially in a higher level article. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In my view, this conflict in particular has revealed the limitations of NEWSORGs wrt fog of war. Hindsight, on the other hand is 20/20. A good example is Battle of Moshchun, which was only created eleven momths later. Follow-on sources can change the picture considerably. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete thank you Jebiguess for starting this AfD and for pinging me. I agree with the topic not being notable. The engagements during the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive in Robotyne were much more notable, being the bulk of the counteroffensive at its later stages, and yet it doesn't have a page (nor should it have one). These engagements are significantly less notable and there isn't much distinguishing them from other Russian-led offensive actions in the frontline during this time other than the symbolic value. By the way, perhaps my sources of information on the war are biased, but as far as I know Robotyne hasn't fallen and has been subject to a back-and-forth, the contents of the article maybe contain original research. The start and end dates most likely do, as usual with these articles on minor engagements.
I personally don't care if the article is draftified but I really don't see it becoming an article ever in the future so we might as well not delay its fate and delete it. Super Ψ Dro 22:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think this is the right course of action to take. Yes, the sources are questionable, but I think the better solution is to find better sources and update information accordingly. And yes, it’s a minor battle tactically, but it’s an important battle symbolically, as the liberation of Robotnye was one of the only gains made during Ukraine’s 2023 counteroffensive. LordOfWalruses (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment expanding on my “draftify” vote…first of all the battle isn’t even over. And while the Russians may see it as merely a psychological thing, at least one Ukrainian source (Bohdan Myroshnykov) has written in strong terms that the defense of Robotyne is key to the defense of Orikhiv, much as Synkivka is key to the defense of Kupiansk. The idea behind draftifying is that drafts are cheap, and even though notability isn’t super likely to emerge from follow-on analyses, some material is likely be useful for related articles. I’ll address others’ points separately. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't oppose draftifying but I'm not certain of a benefit/distinction between that and moving relevant content to Robotyne for example (if not already there). For the benefit of others, retaining it as a draft (for now) does not imply it will become an article, only that it might become an article if good quality sources (rather than routine NEWSORG reporting) indicate long-term notability. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Reading through all of the comments here, I see the strongest arguments for either Draftifying this article or Merging it. In both cases some content will be retained but the Merge option does require the effort on a knowledgeable editor now while a move to Draft space just relocates the article and the subject can be expanded at a later date should circumstances change.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Southern Ukraine campaign: The information is useful, but does not require its own article. Whatever can be reliably cited should be moved to the main timeline article. Draftifying is practically no different than outright deleting: I do not see WP:LASTING notability being established anytime soon, so the article will just end up being deleted in draftspace after 6 months. C F A 💬 20:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Military Proposed deletions[edit]

The following articles have been tagged for proposed deletion:

Current PRODs[edit]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Military&oldid=1234091670"