Gpedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military

Jump to navigation Jump to search

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 {{Gpedia: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.
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 Gpedia'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

Italian conquest of the Horn of Africa

Italian conquest of the Horn of Africa (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 · NYT · WP Library)

This article was written a mere five days after it was originally deleted (AfD discussion in 2017) by a user who was globally blocked after doing so. I imagine this was an attempt to circumnavigate the original AfD. This is essentially a redundant content fork of Italian East Africa, the Second Italo-Ethiopian War, and the Italian invasion of British Somaliland. Sources do not seem to fold all of these things into one big conflict, and the area itself as an Italian territory is covered at Italian East Africa. I recommend SALTing. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

May Weyni massacre

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

Event fails WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG. Current version has 9 references: Annys/Atlas and TGHAT are WP:SELFPUB, SkyNews is the only one of consequence, and the remaining 6 (World radio, Euronews, CBC, Guardian, France24, Tibebu) don't mention the incident and are WP:COATRACK.

The only good citation (Sky News, which I just added) mentions the town, date and 80 casualties. A single article does not pass the bar for NEVENT, and stripping the article of the SELFPUB and COATRACK citations (and their content) would leave about two sentences — which is included already in Casualties of the Tigray War and Timeline of the Tigray War series.

This article was part of a group of 106 almost-identical articles created by a now-blocked sockpuppet and were the subject of a prior AfD which was closed as "procedural keep" because 106 articles were too many bundled together for other editors to be able to effectively evaluate them in a single AfD. (43 of the original 106 have since been deleted, and another 28 turned into redirects.) Platonk (talk) 07:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Several reasons that is not really a workable idea. (1) Circular redirects are not acceptable. (2) The content and citation are already there. (3) There are no internet search engine results for "May Weyni massacre" except to this Gpedia article and all the scraped copies of this Gpedia article. The reason for that is the now-blocked editor invented all 106 'massacre' titles himself; they were not born from media coverage, he was using Gpedia for his own WP:ADVOCACY. Meaning that no one would be searching Gpedia for "May Weyni massacre". Please read WP:Redirect § Purposes of redirects, and then answer: What would be the purpose of keeping a redirect by this name? Platonk (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

February 2021 Gijet massacre

February 2021 Gijet massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Event does not pass WP:NEVENT or WP:GNG, primarily because the event as a massacre cannot be verified with any reliable sources. This article is dubiously sourced. Current version has 9 references: Annys/Atlas is WP:SELFPUB, Tasha is trivia, Reuters is the only one of consequence, and the remaining 6 (World radio, Euronews, CBC, Guardian, France24, Tibebu) don't mention the incident at all and are WP:COATRACK.

The only good citation (Reuters) covers the discovery by satellite imagery of 500+ buildings which had been set on fire and destroyed (not by shelling/bombing). It doesn't mention anyone killed. The number "195" was inserted by a now-blocked editor using as a source the 'Atlas' (Annys) document which only mentions it as a single line item in an appendix of a document self-published on ResearchGate. This event doesn't need to be a standalone article (fails WP:NEVENT), and the relevant content and citation are already included in the Timeline of the Tigray War series.

This article was part of a group of 106 almost-identical articles created by a now-blocked sockpuppet and were the subject of a prior AfD which was closed as "procedural keep" because 106 articles were too many bundled together for other editors to be able to effectively evaluate them in a single AfD. (43 of the original 106 have since been deleted, and another 28 turned into redirects.) Platonk (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

15 February 2021 Addi Geba massacre

15 February 2021 Addi Geba massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

I am also nominating the following related pages:

27 February 2021 Addi Geba massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
May Kinetal massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Indafelasi killing spree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Four standalone articles which do not pass WP:NEVENT or WP:GNG, primarily because the events cannot be verified with any reliable sources. These 4 articles are part of a series of 106 almost-identical articles created by a now-blocked sockpuppet and were the subject of a prior AfD which was closed as "procedural keep" because 106 articles were too many bundled together for other editors to be able to effectively evaluate them in a single AfD. (43 of the original 106 have since been deleted, and another 28 turned into redirects.)

These are unnecessary articles of alleged events sourced identically to each other. The first three sources include: (1) an article posted on an advocacy blog website tghat.com (self-published), (2) a victim list spreadsheet at the end of a document self-published on ResearchGate, and (3) an AP News article which mentions only one of these four locations but has no dates nor casualty count nor any specific 'massacre' event to corroborate any of these 4 Gpedia articles (doesn't verify). The other 6 citations (World Radio, EuroNews, CBC, Guardian, France24, DW) are WP:COATRACK because none of them mention these events at all, and were copypasta'd to each article to fill them out and make them appear notable. Platonk (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Imbaseneyti massacres

Imbaseneyti massacres (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Event does not pass WP:NEVENT or WP:GNG, primarily because the event cannot be verified with any reliable sources. This article is dubiously sourced. Current version has 10 references: Annys/Atlas and TGHAT are WP:SELFPUB, EEPA is a false verification, #3 is just a footnote, and the remaining 6 (World radio, Euronews, CBC, Guardian, France24, DW) do not cover this event and are just WP:COATRACK.

This article was part of a series of 106 almost-identical articles created by a now-blocked sockpuppet and were the subject of a prior AfD which was closed as "procedural keep" because 106 articles were too many bundled together for other editors to be able to effectively evaluate them in a single AfD. (43 of the original 106 have since been deleted, and another 28 turned into redirects.) Platonk (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Kurdish–Turkish conflict (disambiguation)

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

not needed anymore. Heanor (talk) 08:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Józef Biss

Józef Biss (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 · NYT · WP Library)

While there is some coverage of this individual, this is almost all from a single source. This could be considered a case of WP:BIO1E, but does not meet GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. First, the nominator for deletion blanked the article altogether with the edit summary redirect to only incident which he is notorious for, instead redirecting it to Al Columbia, who is patently not related to the article nor to Pawłokoma. I hope the nominator recognises that error.
Referring to the article itself, Biss played a central role in the Pawłokoma massacre, which itself is notable (but which article is a stub). Per WP:BLP1E, the article should be deleted if a person is known for one event, is otherwise WP:LOWPROFILE and his role in the event was minor or tangential. The thing is, the point 3 is not satisfied - he was central to the event.
The problem here is not that Biss only has one source that describes him but that there are few people who can read both Polish and Ukrainian, have access to the books and want to expand it. The sources are in fact rather plentiful [1], just no one bothered to use them yet. The article needs substantial work, but it clearly belongs here, at least for so long as the Pawłokoma article itself is not expanded. If it had been, we could have probably talked about merging, but given the dismal state of the Pawłokoma massacre article (which should be larger), the article should stay. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment - Szmendewrowiecki's sources list (The sources are in fact rather plentiful... [2]) is from… 1800s before Biss was even born and links to entirely different people. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Sources as they appear in the link and that contain something more than simply a mention of the name:
  • Stanisław Kryciński, Przemyśl i Pogórze Przemyskie (2007)
  • Wiesław Józef Wiąk, Struktura organizacyjna Armii Krajowej 1939-1944 (2003)
  • Grzegorz Rąkowski, Ziemia lwowska (2005) - cited in the article
  • Grzegorz Mazur, Konspiracja lwowska, 1939-1945: słownik biograficzny (1997)
  • Dariusz Iwaneczko, Zbigniew Nawrocki (eds.), Rok pierwszy: powstanie i działalność aparatu bezpieczeństwa publicznego na Rzeszowszczyźnie (2005)
  • Konspiracja i opór społeczny w Polsce 1944-1956: słownik biograficzny, vol. 1 and 3 (2002)
  • Bogdan Kobuszewski, Piotr Matusak, Tadeusz Rawski (eds.) Polski Ruch Oporu 1939-1945 (1988)
The list may go on, and I've only mentioned the Polish-language sources. Ukrainian-language sources have not even been considered in this list despite my writing in Ukrainian. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
The link [3] you posted does not show any of the above. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
They start with this[4] then this [5] and so on. Anyone can check. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Google in Canada doesn't work the same way as it does in Poland, or even across users, which I've already seen elsewhere in discussions (Google should know better - Ukrainian Canadians are quite plentiful in Prairie provinces, and among these some speak Ukrainian; though again I can't rule out Google serving different content based on the province you live in). Besides, it's fairly strange that a query in Ukrainian returns you a false positive publication in Dutch (it finds repeated instances of "biss."). But anyway, you've got the titles above, you can search among these. They have each talk a paragraph or two about him, out of which we can make a small but a meaningful entry. As has been said, Ukrainian sources were not considered but that's because Google serves me Polish entries for Ukrainian queries. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Google in Canada doesn't work the same way as it does in Poland.. - no, the search results for this particular entry are exactly the same in Poland and in Canada. Exactly the same. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
No - your search you show now (in the attached screen shot) is in books section (książki - in Polish), that’s why is different. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Plus "Przemysl i Pogórze Przemyskie: przewodnik
..przewodnika stanowi Słownik miejscowości zawierający szczegółowe informacje krajoznawcze o wszystkich miejscowościach na omawianym terenie, w tym także nieistniejących. English - the sightseeing guide is a locality dictionary containing detailed sightseeing information about all the villages in the area in question, including non-existent ones
The sightseeing guide is not a RS for this topic area. Stanisław Kryciński is not a historian (he is an engineer[6])- GizzyCatBella🍁 21:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
You may note that the link at the top of the screenshot is exactly the same as the link I've offered at the very beginning. You may also want to see here for the values of tbm search parameter.
Now, you've cited one book which arguably isn't RS, but you've got six others. Anything about them? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
What are you trying to reference? - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
My point is not what we are trying to reference, but that the sources are there. People simply didn't bother to reach them. Since multiple independent and reliable sources talk about him (and I've only taken Polish-language books), it squarely meets WP:GNG. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
No, there are not. Your source number 3 - Grzegorz Rąkowski, Ziemia lwowska (2005) is another tour guide.
But lets focus on your source number 2 for now - Wiesław Józef Wiąk, Struktura organizacyjna Armii Krajowej 1939-1944 (2003) - Is this source about Józef Biss? GizzyCatBella🍁 06:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment. It doesn't have to be about him, it needs to have WP:SIGCOV content about him. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. Biss is notable not only for his genocidal killings of Ukrainian civilians, but also for his extensive banditry after the war. Or, as patriotic Poles call it, anti-communist activities via armed robbery. This was a notorious criminal, a mass murderer, who is discussed extensively in Polish and Ukranian sources.--Erin Vaxx (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC) - globally banned strike
User:Erin Vaxx please strike your ethnically based attack and insults. Volunteer Marek 17:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. While we are crippled by the poor digitization of Polish sources, and the fact that what is digitized on Google Books is snippet view, I see the following:
  • [7]: a footnote biography of at least several sentences length
  • [8] and indeterminate length and style biography that also appears to be at least several sentences long
While this is not a lot, it meets my interpretation of the minimum needed for GNG (at least two independent, reliable sources, which contain WP:SIGCOV-passing content about the subject). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Farid Hotaki

Farid Hotaki (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 · NYT · WP Library)

This appears to be a non-notable person. All sources are either affiliated, passing mentions, or non-RS. Publisher is a vanity press. valereee (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Peshawar (1758)

Battle of Peshawar (1758) (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 · NYT · WP Library)

There seems to be some doubt about many of the sources, others do not seem to even mention this battle. Does it in fact have more than one line in any of these sources, was this a major battle? Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hell many of them seem to just list it as one of a number of cities captured, so was there even battle?Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Redirect/Merge' to Maratha conquest of North-west India by using a source like this one. Extorc (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
    It seems no source says a battle occurred there, so I am unsure this would be a used search term. This looks made up by the article creator. What seems to have happened is the city was captured, but that could mean anything. So if there was a merge/redirect it would also have to have name change.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
    In agreement as well. Change the title to Capture of Peshawar (1758), delete the page and direct the title to another page suitable for it. MehmoodS (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
    The more and more arguments I see for keep the more and more this looks utterly made up, so no I do not think a redirect (now) is a good idea as I doubt it would be used.Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep - Nominator has removed 4 sources, while only one source was the disputed one. I have reinstated 3 sources back. This battle is an important battle, which shows the maximum extent of the Maratha Empire in the north. One source [1] clearly mentions there was an attack, though nominator claims there was no battle. I could not access other book sources quoted as they are not available on google books preview. Crashed greek (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    Of the sources that were removed, only one seemed to be about this one "battle" and it seems to not be an RS. The rest just refer to the capture of the city, not a battle. None were more than a line, no in-depth coverage from which we could create an article. Note your source here does not say it was attacked, it says it was captured.Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    It clearly says attacked, the exact quote "The Marathas attacked soon after and, with some help from the Sikhs, managed to capture Attock, Peshawar, and Multan between April and May 1758." is clearly mentioned in the ref. Peshawar was a big city, so your claim that it was occupied by Marathas as it was abandoned is wrong. Also another source [2] clearly mentions that it was stationed by Afghan Emperor's son Taimur Sultan and Jahan Khan were at Peshawar. Crashed greek (talk) 10:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    Also you have wrongly tagged a source of 2005 book source, which was published before wikipedia article was created, while the reliability issue was with another book. So I have removed the tag, and put back the disputed source book too but with the tag you you have inserted. Crashed greek (talk) 10:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
So (and let me get this straight, they attacked 3 cities all at once and fought one battle between them that lasted a month? No they are not, they are talking about a campighn where 3 cities were captured, that does not mean there was a battle there (read wp:or). In fact this whole article looks like, ORSlatersteven (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
The source above says Emperor's son and Jahan Khan had retreated to Peshawar, after seige of Sirhindh in March and Lahore was captured in April. And Peshawar also was overrun by Marathas in May. I was able to verify one more source now using google search, [3][1] I have added the exact quotes with page numbers now. Crashed greek (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - Also nominator is now trying to move the article to Capture of Peshwawar (1758), after nominating here for deletion. He is trying multiple things with the same article to see which one works. Crashed greek (talk) 10:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    No, I said that as there does not appear to have been a battle (and no source says there was one) even as a redirect we would have to use what people would be looking for, which is the capture of the city.Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    The one source clearly said it as battle has been called as disputed using a wikipedia essay. Essays are not wikipedia policies. You have sided with that claim without any justifications. Other sources mention Peshawar fort as attacked, overrun. That is not the same as captured as you claim. Crashed greek (talk) 11:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    As I recall the source did not say it was a battle they just gave the date it had been captured. Would you care to provide a quote from an RS that says there was a battle THERE? Using the word Battle or similar termSlatersteven (talk) 12:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    Attacked and overrun is similar term to a battle. Northwest Froniter is the region for which Peshwawar fort is the capital. Sources are clear Crashed greek (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    Another source [4] uses words "defeated and captured", which means a battle. Crashed greek (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    Battle is used in the sense of war or combat which takes place between two armies in a battlefield due to conflict. Whereas Attack is violent or aggressive act that cause harm to the other. So from the sources, the battle actually took place at a different city/town/location, likely Sirhind, where Afghans were defeated and as a result, Timur Shah and Jahan Khan fled to Peshawar. But after finding out that the army of Maratha and the Sikhs is in hot pursuit, they vacated and fled from Peshawar, and thus the fort of Peshawar was attacked and captured. There was no battle in/at Peshawar nor does the attack define it as a battle. If there was a Battle, any sources would clearly state it. It was simply capture. MehmoodS (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    They can also mean in a war or campaign. That is why it is OR to say this was a battle. You are using wp:synthesis to draw conclusions not stated EXPLICITLY in the sources.Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Barua, Pradeep (2005). The state at war in South Asia. University of Nebraska Press. p. 55. ISBN 9780803213449. The Marathas attacked soon after and, with some help from the Sikhs, managed to capture Attock, Peshawar, and Multan between April and May 1758.
  2. ^ War, Culture and Society in Early Modern South Asia, 1740-1849
  3. ^ Mehta, Jaswant Lal (2005). Advanced Study in the History of Modern India 1707-1813. New Dawn Press, Incorporated. p. 256. ISBN 9781932705546. "The province of Multan and northwest frontier were also overrun by Marathas and the forts of Peshawar and Attock were garrisoned by their troops"
  4. ^ Conflict and Conquest in the Islamic World: A Historical Encyclopedia [2 Volumes] By Alexander Mikaberidze https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Conflict_and_Conquest_in_the_Islamic_Wor/jBBYD2J2oE4C?hl=en&gbpv=1 Page 43 "The Marathas, assisted by Sikhs, defeated the Afghans and captured Attock, Peshwar and Multan in the spring of 1758.
  • Delete I am the one who tagged the article for WP:PROD a few months back and discussed on talk page as well. There is not a single reliable source that mentions any battle taking place at peshawar. Even redirect to Capture of Peshawar is not helpful because, there is hardly any source which says Peshawar was captured. Most of the historians that mention Maratha invasion of Punjab do not even mention Peshawar except some hyper nationalists authors. Even if we accept dubious claim of capturing Peshawar (not battle), there is no need for a separate article whose authenticity is in question and best can be merged with Maratha conquest of North-west India. The user crshed greek who commented above for keeping the article tried multiple times engaging me in an edit war to keep such dubious source which is listed in WP:PUS. After exhaustion, I let go of the matter. Anyway, I strongly suggest for deletion of the page or least merging it with Maratha conquest page. Hiensrt (talk) 06:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    Multiple shources say that Peshawar was recaptured by afghan emperor and maratha empire suffering casualties there before proceeding to the famous battle of Panipat. That means it was indeed captured by marathas. Also sources say that maratha empire had garrisoned their troops in Peshawar fort. At least one foreign author has cleaely told that peshawar was captured, whichihave quoted here. So no need to bring nationalism, islamism, communism etc here. You have gone offline and this new user MehmoodS has surfaced. You have voted as delete here, but he has refrained from voting here. Crashed greek (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    Actually he did say merge, he has just not bolded it. Also, if it is was recaptured, that would be irrelevant as it does not seem to be the battle you are referring to, which its original capture (again we go back to a kind of WP:SYNTHESIS) even if A battle was fought there at some point it does not mean it was this one. And again capture and battle are not synonymous, many cities surrender without a fight.Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep (possibly renamed). Maratha conquest of North-west India has a paragraph on the relevant events, which makes clear that Peshawar changed hands twice. I would suggest that the title might be something live Peshawar in the Maratha War. I presume there are sources which may provide more detail than is in Maratha conquest of North-west India. There is a certain class of WP editor who seem to want to make everything a battle, so that they can use a battlebox. Sometimes towns will be surrendered because they are untenable, the forces that were in possession being allowed to retreat in safety. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
That page is also citing the same source, this page has. While the tertiary work is useful but in this case it is propagating the same boast which is doubted by many. Here [9] Please read footnote on page 76 of the book i provided. This book "Fall of Mughal Empire" is written by eminent historian Jadunath Sarkar and his whole work is based on primary sources, he is stating that maratha standard over Attock is a mere boast and no maratha soldier crossed even Chenab river. Remember Attock is further west on Indus river and Peshawar is still west to that so their claim of going upto even Attock is doubted let alone Peshawar. Another book I am citing here is "Punjab: A history from Aurangzeb to Mountbatten" by Rajmohan Gandhi. On page no 103 it is written that, "Though the claim that their standard was raised on the walls of Attock on the Indus's eastern shore has been disputed, the Marathas, led by Raghunath Rao and aided by the Sikhs and by Adina, had pushed the Afghans out of India. However, Raghunath Rao did not pursue the Afghans beyond Chenab. He returned to Lahore, as did Adina." So here too it is stated that even raising their flag on east bank of Indus is disputed by historian let alone crossing Indus and then going upto peshawar. One more writer Khshwant Singh in History of Sikhs, states, "As the Sikh and Maratha armies crossed the Sutlej, Jahan Khan, who was in the Jullundur Doab, hastily retired to Lahore. A few days later the entire Afghan army vacated the city and was in full retreat across the Ravi. Raghu Nath Rao entered Lahore in April 1758. Adina Beg Khan feted him at the Shalamar Gardens and had the city illuminated in his honour. While the festivities were going on in Lahore, Sikh and Maratha cavalry went in pursuit of the Afghan prince and his commander-in-chief. Taimur and Jahan Khan barely escaped with their lives when crossing the Chenab near Wazirabad. Their rearguard and heavy baggage were captured and brought back to Lahore. The Sikhs took the Afghan prisoners to Amritsar and made them clean up the pool around the Harimandir. The Marathas returned to Delhi the richer by several crores. Adina Beg Khan got what he wanted: the subedarī of the Punjab at seventy-five lacs of rupees a year to be paid to the Marathas." It is clear that even the maratha boast of reaching Attock is doubtful let alone Peshawar which is still far away from there. Hiensrt (talk) 10:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment Marathas reaching even till Attock is doubtful and disputed, let alone crossing Indus and reaching Peshawar.

1. First source: Eminent Historian Jadunath Sarkar's magnum opus in four volumes, "Fall of Mughal Empire", Here is the link for second volume [10], please see page 75-76 and footnote on page 76 of the book. He is stating that maratha standard over Attock is a mere boast and no maratha soldier crossed even Chenab river. Remember Attock is further west on Indus river and Peshawar is still west to that so their claim of going upto even Attock is doubted let alone Peshawar. 2. Another source I "Punjab: A history from Aurangzeb to Mountbatten" by Rajmohan Gandhi. On page no 103 it is written that, "Though the claim that their standard was raised on the walls of Attock on the Indus's eastern shore has been disputed, the Marathas, led by Raghunath Rao and aided by the Sikhs and by Adina, had pushed the Afghans out of India. However, Raghunath Rao did not pursue the Afghans beyond Chenab. He returned to Lahore, as did Adina." 3. Another writer Khushwant Singh in History of Sikhs, states, "As the Sikh and Maratha armies crossed the Sutlej, Jahan Khan, who was in the Jullundur Doab, hastily retired to Lahore. A few days later the entire Afghan army vacated the city and was in full retreat across the Ravi. Raghu Nath Rao entered Lahore in April 1758. Adina Beg Khan feted him at the Shalamar Gardens and had the city illuminated in his honour. While the festivities were going on in Lahore, Sikh and Maratha cavalry went in pursuit of the Afghan prince and his commander-in-chief. Taimur and Jahan Khan barely escaped with their lives when crossing the Chenab near Wazirabad. Their rearguard and heavy baggage were captured and brought back to Lahore. The Sikhs took the Afghan prisoners to Amritsar and made them clean up the pool around the Harimandir. The Marathas returned to Delhi the richer by several crores. Adina Beg Khan got what he wanted: the subedarī of the Punjab at seventy-five lacs of rupees a year to be paid to the Marathas." It is clear that even the maratha boast of reaching Attock is doubtful let alone reaching Peshawar which is still far away from there. And fighting a battle there is not found in any source whatsoever except one random source provided by one editor, that source is listed in WP:PUS. All three writers I provided here are quite known and have wikipedia pages. Since I already voted for Delete before, so wrote comment while adding these sources, my vote is still Delete.Hiensrt (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The book you quoted of Rajmohan's year 2013 book is not searcheable on google, so it has failed the verification. You are also not quoting exact sentences from books, so your sentences would be WP:OR. But multiple books say opposite of what you are stating. Crashed greek (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
The book of Rajmohan Gandhi is available on google books, here is the link [11], it is just that, its content is not accesible. I don't know why you are making things up, I quoted exact wordings from the book as it appears on Page no 103. I don't think you understand what failed verification and WP:OR means. Besides there is one more book Forgotten Mughals by G.S. Cheema, here is google book link [12], in the book on the page no 294, it is stated, "After their easy success at Sirhind, the Marathas advanced further, the Afghans evacuating the Bist Doab and, on 19 April, Lahore as well. The forces of Prince Timur were weak, and the Lahore fort in disrepair; so the viceroy evacuated the Punjab rapidly without risking another engage ment. The Deccani cavalry chased them as far as the Indus, but they did not try to cross the river, the traditional border of the Indian world. Nor do they ever appear to have ever garrisoned the fort of Attock which presumably remained in Durrani hands. But for a few months at least, the whole of Punjab including Multan, was dominated by the Marathas and their Sikh allies." Here also the author is clearly saying they did not cross Indus river, Peshawar is of course beyond Indus, let alone Indus, he is also saying that Attock fort was under Durrani forces and was not occupied by Marathas. Hiensrt (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Wp:v has nothing to say about access, in fact, quite the opposite. It only has to be verifiable by those who have access.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Moments after I had told [13] that some sources added by others I could not search on google books, you had tagged [14] those sources as failed verification in the article. But here you are stating the opposite. Crashed greek (talk) 06:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I did not tag them because I could not read them, I read them. I just did not conclude that they were not talking about a battle.Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Redirect/Merge Adding my decision in bold. Reliable sources mention the event as "Capture" as a result of the battle that took place in different location. Repeating what I mentioned earlier: "Change the title to Capture of Peshawar (1758), delete the page and direct the title to another page suitable for it." MehmoodS (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • comment Here I am adding all four sources I provided above in citation form, all pf which talk about Maratha campaign in Punjab and states unequivocally that Maratha armies didn't cross the Indus river, almost every source is denying even occupation of Attock, let alone Peshawar.[1][2][3][4]

Mithridates (soldier)

Mithridates (soldier) (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 · NYT · WP Library)

WP:BIO1E Extremely minor figure in the writing of Plutarch. Current version is essentially a plot summary of parts of Plutarch's Life of Artaxerxes. There's not really any significant coverage of this individual in the academic literature as far as I can see. The death penalty that they were supposedly subjected to, Scaphism seems notable and is a possible redirect target. Any content of this article can easily be covered elsewhere. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep: Before a certain point in history (and 401 BC is certainly before that point), anyone known to us can be reasonably treated as notable; the records are so sparse it's a bit absurd to try make gradients. (The subject seems to have the level of scholarly mention I'd expect of minor-but-known ancient figures, both included and not in the article.) That doesn't necessarily answer whether we should have a stand-alone article, which is closer to the nominator's contention, so it's worth responding to that too. Mithridates is the first known case of (supposed) scaphism, and it's reasonable to have a stand-alone article discussing the specific context of this case; readers could reasonably desire to know more than would be due to include in the scaphism article itself about a single individual. There's also the open question of whether scaphism actually existed, and merging further Mithridates-related content to that article would risk unbalancing its perspective even more in favour of that of its historical accuracy (as it stands the article is already severely imbalanced), while simply redirecting -- or the damnably realistic outcome of a merge that eventually gets turned into a de facto redirect by such content being removed as undue -- would leave the interested reader with no place to find detail they might reasonably want to read. The article could use some work (some of the quotes can be turned into properly contextualized own-words text), but this is a normal-editing matter. Vaticidalprophet 04:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Before a certain point in history (and 401 BC is certainly before that point), anyone known to us can be reasonably treated as notable is certainly an "interesting" interpretation of the notability guidelines. There are plenty of individuals recorded in cuneiform transactions and the like that I would not consider notable. The detail surrounding the deaths of Cyrus are better covered at Cyrus the Younger or the battle article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. The argument that everyone whose name is known from classical antiquity possesses some notability is venerable, but unnecessary here—the fact that this Mithridates is mentioned in other articles, about Cyrus, Artaxerxes, scaphism, etc. makes that line of argument redundant. However, it may be difficult to cover the topic adequately over the course of multiple articles; in each of these he would naturally be mentioned only in passing, or for one aspect of this article. If someone tried to fold all of this into any of them—although I think perhaps the quotations are excessive, and that they could be trimmed and/or summarized to better effect—the chances are that the material would be significantly edited down because of undue weight in what is, admittedly, a minor episode. Nonetheless, we have a soldier who ostensibly killed a king, or at least the claimant to the throne, and thereby changed the course of a war. That makes him notable, and the fact that he later boasted of his exploit and was put to death in what may be the first historical or literary example of a particularly gruesome method of punishment is also notable. This collection of facts doesn't really belong in any one other article, except perhaps as a passing mention, and this topic deserves a bit more than that. It may be too long as is, but that can be fixed, leaving a respectable short article. P Aculeius (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. Surely this –>> "According to Plutarch's Life of Artaxerxes, a young Persian soldier named Mithridates unknowingly struck Cyrus the Younger during the Battle of Cunaxa... Mithridates boasted of killing Cyrus in the court, and Parysatis had him executed by scaphism" <<– in the article of Cyrus the Younger (and similar notices elsewhere) is already enough. Topic doesn't merit a standalone article (the definition of 'notability') due to lack of coverage in secondary sources (WP:NBASIC). And who knows if Plutarch's account can even be taken at face value. Avilich (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Whether Plutarch's account is accurate is not the point: figures from legend or mythology are still notable irrespective of their historicity, and Plutarch is generally regarded as a reliable source, even though he reported stories and traditions as well as provable fact—and he admitted as much, just as modern historians mention widely-known anecdotes: they're an indication of how people regarded historical persons and events, whether or not the anecdotes themselves can be proven. The question of secondary sources is relevant, but I found some (including some recent ones) with a simple Google search for "Mithridates, slayer of Cyrus" (perhaps not the best formulation, but the fact that it worked means that the sources demanded exist, and that "Before" was not followed). Notability is a given: he's the killer (or assassin, even unwittingly) of a king, whose deed changed the course of a civil war. Not to mention the first known victim of an infamous form of execution. The only reason for not having an article would be if there's not enough material, but the fact that a thorough discussion of this fellow, even pared down from the article's present state, would be unduly long in an article about Cyrus or Artaxerxes, means that a stand-alone article is justified. P Aculeius (talk) 05:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
It would not be unduly long because that sentence contains all that is known about him. "Notability" (not has nothing to do with someone being a killer or associated with someone important: it's just Gpedia's term for a topic having received enough coverage that it requires an article for the information not to be unduly long elsewhere. This is not the case here. A standalone article simply adds nothing, and is just an unnecessary content fork, though those large quotes may give the opposite impression. Avilich (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The notion that the assassin of a king lacks notability because "notability cannot be inherited" contorts Gpedia's notability guidelines beyond recognition. By this argument, none of the twentieth century's famous assassins merit inclusion—all of them were nobodies who came to public attention solely because of a single act, achieving nothing particularly noteworthy before or after it. You may well argue that "other facts are known about them", but that is a separate argument, and has nothing to do with notability. And the claim that "that sentence contains all that is known about him" is demonstrably false. The passages quoted, however excessive, include a number of details about his motivations, conduct, and personality, just as they do about the motives and character of the man who ordered his gruesome execution. But most of these details would likely be excluded from any articles about Artaxerxes or Cyrus, since Mithridates is not the subject of those articles, and in them a brief summary would be expected—much as we would not expect all of the facts about Lee Harvey Oswald to appear in the article about John F. Kennedy, or even the article about Kennedy's assassination (which is actually considerably shorter), or all of the details about Gavrilo Princip to appear under Franz Ferdinand or his assassination. A lack of notability cannot reasonably be argued in this case—the sole question is whether there would be sufficient content to justify a stand-alone article once the current contents are edited down to a reasonable length; and this can be determined from the fact that the various details that are properly be included here would be excessive in articles about other persons or topics that could discuss Mithridates, while even the main facts would have to be dispersed amongst multiple other articles. P Aculeius (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
A lack of notability cannot reasonably be argued in this case—the sole question is whether there would be sufficient content to justify a stand-alone article once the current contents are edited down to a reasonable length In Gpedia, those are the same thing. And besides, after removing those gigantic quotes, all that remains can be summed up in one or two sentences in Cyrus the Younger's article with no loss of information. If you don't think that, then we'll have to agree to disagree. Avilich (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Notability has nothing to do with the length of an article; many notable persons have very short articles, or none at all. And it would be utterly inappropriate to "remove" the quotations without summarizing or paraphrasing the relevant passages, which would leave a great deal more than your one-sentence summary. What we have here is an article where the original editors identified the relevant facts, but failed to extract them from the original source, or provide additional context from secondary sources. That means that we have an article in need of improvement—not deletion. P Aculeius (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I said nothing of the length of the article specifically, just pointing out how WP:SIGCOV works. There's no evidence so far that the sources which the editors "failed" to find actually exist. Avilich (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
You said that the two things I mentioned (lack of notability, sufficient content to justify a stand-alone article) were "the same thing". There are many notable persons about whom not much is known. And I clearly indicated that I found additional sources with a simple Google search, which you could have replicated just by typing in the same search terms (which I said were probably sub-optimal). But it's not my job to pile up evidence in order to save the article—I'm merely pointing out that the nomination is premised on the claim that there are no academic sources, when the most cursory of searches would have found some. This nomination fails to demonstrate lack of notability or lack of sources, so the discussion should be closed as "keep". Any editor is free to improve the article by reworking and/or editing down the quotations—bearing in mind that the subject is historically significant, and that there is more to say about him than would justifiably be merged into other articles; the "improvement" should not be done with the goal of reducing the article to one or two sentences in order to renominate it for deletion. Just because the quotations are overly-long doesn't mean that there shouldn't be any; just because some of the details don't seem important to the course of history doesn't mean they shouldn't be mentioned. Gpedia is an encyclopedia, not just a collection of highlights with all of the details squeezed out. P Aculeius (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment At a minimum this article has way too much coatracking about things not directly related to the subject, and way too many and too long quotes directly from sources. If it is kept, we need to rework it to focus on the subject and to not look like it belongs in Wikisource.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is quite a lot of discussion on Mithridates in Carsten Binder, Plutarchs Vita des Artaxerxes, de Gruyter, 2008 (ISBN 9783110202694). However Binder does say that nothing more can be said of Mithridates than what Plutarch tells. He mostly deals with the sources of Plutarch for the story and a literary analysis of its use within the narrative. I don't think Gpedia should reproduce that kind of in-depth analysis of a text and therefore think the article has to be deleted, or possibly redirected to Cyrus the Younger#Expedition against Artaxerxes II (401 BC). There may be more room to talk about the story in an article Life of Artaxerxes. I have Binder's book in pdf if someone wants to create this article (but it's in German). T8612 (talk) 10:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak keep/merge to scaphism. This seems to me to be right on the borderline of being worth keeping – but I think that a lot of discussion of notability in this AfD so far is utterly unrelated to what our guidelines actually say. WP:GNG sets out as a standard for notability "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and I think this is the standard we should be considering the article by.
P.Aculeius' assertion that assassins of world leaders must be notable in general because otherwise we wouldn't be able to have a page on e.g. Lee Harvey Oswald seems to me to be clearly wrong – Lee Harvey Oswald meets GNG through being the subject of several books. If Mithridates had likewise been the subject of several books, he would be unquestionably notable. (And, uh, Mithridates wasn't an assassin, and he didn't kill a world leader; he was the soldier who happened to be credited with the death of a claimant to the throne!)
Not what I said. I said that the argument that "notability can't be inherited" can't be used to claim that "assassins aren't notable, because their notability is derived from their relationship to their victims". It's true that there are lots of reliable sources about 20th century assassins—because they're recent, whereas Plutarch may be the only source for Mithridates, simply because the death of Artaxerxes occurred more than two thousand years ago. But few if any of these persons did anything notable before or after killing someone famous; they are notable solely due to one act, but cannot be described as non-notable because "notability cannot be inherited". I'm not going to quibble about the loose description of Mithridates as an "assassin", which was never relevant to any point I made, but arguably two people claiming to be king, each one leading their own army against the other, could reasonably be described as "leaders"—in fact it sounds like Artaxerxes was on the verge of winning the war and becoming the undisputed king, when Mithridates happened to kill him. But whether you call him a "world leader" also isn't really important. My argument for notability is that he's the pivotal figure in ending the war (at least according to Plutarch), and sufficient details are known about him to justify an article—details that would not be adequately covered in any of the other articles that would naturally mention him. The fact that several modern writers discuss Mithridates—even if not in great detail—both strengthens the argument for keeping the article, and demonstrates that one of the premises for this nomination was incorrect. P Aculeius (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I also am highly suspicious of the argument that "once you get far enough back in history, anyone who we know the name of should be considered notable". If all we know about a figure is their name, and there is no discussion of them in reliable sources, then just blindly making an article which says "X was a figure in Greek history, mentioned on inscription Y" when nothing further can be said about them is pretty much pointless.
On the other hand, the fact that an ancient figure only appears in one ancient source does not mean that they are inherently not notable – Neaira (hetaira) is an example of a figure who exists in only one ancient source and yet has been the subject of a book-length biography by a modern scholar, and thus I would argue is notable. In the case of Mithridates, the fact that (per T8612 - I don't have access) Carsten Binder discusses the case in depth in his commentary on the life of Artaxerxes, plus the discussion by Bruce Lincoln in From Artaxerxes to Abu Ghraib makes me think that there is just about enough commentary in reliable sources to pass the notability barrier. I wouldn't object to a merge to scaphism given that all of the coverage seems to be about his execution, however. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Your source doesn't seem to offer any actual commentary on Mithridates though, just of Plutarch's portrayal of his torture in the context of "imperial violence". He even just quotes the entire thing and takes Plutarch's account at face value (offering, thus, as little additional commentary as possible) while making his point. Your source may be usable on scaphism, though. As for Binder, his analysis of Mithridates himself appears to be limited to (Google translation, p. 208) "nothing additional can be said about the Mithridates mentioned by Plutarch in addition to the information handed down here after Ctesias: He is said to have participated in the killing of Cyrus the Younger in the battle of Kunaxa may have been involved and later executed by Artaxerxes II at the instigation of the Parysatis" – which seems to confirm that the subject fails GNG. The rest of what Binder says concerns spelling, etymology (pp. 207–8), passing mentions, and, as T8612 said, a "literary analysis" of the story within the narrative, none of which is really relevant to Mithridates himself. So I still think that a brief notice in the article Cyrus the Younger (and others) is already enough, and that this should not be a standalone page. Avilich (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, as I said I think it's at best a marginal keep, and I could definitely be persuaded that merging to scaphism is the way forward. That said, I think that literary analysis of the story of Mithridates in Plutarch's narrative absolutely could fit into an article on Mithridates – just as, say, an analysis of the place of Aspasia in Old Comedy and fourth-century philosophy fits into an article on Aspasia. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep -- If this were about a modern murder, we would make if "murder of foo", but I think there was more than one Artaxerxes, so that the best answer is to do nothing. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep: per Vaticidalprophet. ––FormalDude talk 00:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Action of 16 January 1916

AfDs for this article:
Action of 16 January 1916 (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 · NYT · WP Library)

1. This is a skirmish within an engagement. Neither primary nor secondary sources consider this material enough to be a battle in its own right. 2. This is written by an indefinitely suspended user with a history of adding essays to wikipedia. 3. It lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to meet WP:GNG. The firefight between a German cruiser and a British cargo vessel on January 16, 1916 is not described as a battle in its own right by reliable sources. It would be better to delete the page and ensure any sourced details are recorded instead in the article about the SMS Möwe 4. Given that this "battle" is not documented elsewhere, it is a new battle as theorised by the creator's original research. This battle honor is not recognized as such by the Kriegsmarine. His creations have the prefix "Action of" and a suffix of the date in British English format, to emulate the manner/format in which certain battle honors of the Royal Navy were recorded from 1847 onwards. Keith H99 (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages, for the same reasons. These articles contain lots of maybes and probablys. They have a reading list at the foot of the page. They do not have inline citations. These engagements are lacking in significance.

Action of 13 May 1944 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Action of 10 November 1944 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Action of 5 July 1942 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Any sourced content should be recorded within the articles for U-1224, USS Flounder & USS Growler. Keith H99 (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages, for the same reasons. These articles contain lots of maybes and probablys. They have a reading list at the foot of the page. They do not have inline citations. These engagements are lacking in significance.

Action of 6 October 1944 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Action of 23 April 1945 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Any sourced content should be recorded within the articles for U-168 & USS Besugo. Penultimate addition. Keith H99 (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Above items now listed in separate nomination, as requested.
Articles for deletion/Action of 23 April 1945
Thanks Keith H99 (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages, for the same reasons.

Action of 12 October 1950 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What is particularly interesting is that the talk page acknowledges that there is no scholarly source for this engagement.
Talk:Action of 12 October 1950
I deduce it lacks significance. Final edit Keith H99 (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Rename to Sinking of SS Clan Mactavish. This is a reasonable article: I expect there are Reliable sources, even if not cited in-line. Commerce raiding during WWI was severe enough to worry the British government, so that merging this inot a list article might be appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I see the sinking of the vessel is recorded in a chronological list as the eighth of fifteen ships sunk or captured on the first raiding voyage of SMS Möwe. Keith H99 (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
The last part of the article is about USS Pirate. I have cut this, and pasted it into the USS Pirate article.
One of the few citations in the article, which references the loss of two minesweepers, has been added to the Operation Wonsan article, as it was lacking an inline citation for the loss of the two minesweepers.08:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus following separation of other articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge into the SMS Möwe (1914) page for the ship. It adds flavour to the ship page and the citation link would be a useful thing there for further information if someone was interested. Gusfriend (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment -- perhasp the answer is to merge to this and other sinkings to SMS Möwe. The individual victims are perhaps NN.

Peterkingiron (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Can we get a separate Afd for the 12th October 1950 if that is deemed worthy of deletion. Gusfriend (talk) 10:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Ben Het

Battle of Ben Het (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Unnecessary fork from Ben Het Camp, which provides some expanded detail of the 3 March 1969 attack, but not enough to warrant its own page. There were multiple "battles" at Ben Het: the 3 March 1969 attack, the May-June 1969 siege, the April-May 1972 siege and the 12-13 October 1972 conquest of the base, all of which are detailed on the Ben Het Camp page. Any relevant detail should be merged into that page. Mztourist (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep. The infobox of the Ben Het Camp article featured a WP:RED to the previously nonexistent Battle of Ben Het article under Battles/wars, suggesting an article for the battle was desired. The battle is also detailed on the PT-76 article, which would lead one to believe it should have it's own article so as not to be exclusively spread across multiple articles. The notion that an article for the battle shouldn't exist due to an article for the camp existing that mentions the battle is a bit baffling, given there are numerous articles on battles for forts, castles and bases that exist in conjunction with the articles for the forts, castles and bases they took place within. For example, Viet Cong attack on Tan Son Nhut Air Base (1966) is allowed to exist alongside Tan Son Nhut Air Base, with the 1966 attack not being excluded to detail in the latter article.
In regards to there being multiple "battles" for Ben Het, generally when searching for the 'Battle of Ben Het' or reading mention of the 'Battle of Ben Het,' the tank battle of 3 March 1969 is the engagement you'll find. The 3 March 1969 attack is also the only engagement truly titled a "battle" that you mentioned, and if the siege and conquest were to warrant their own articles then they could be titled the 'Siege of Ben Het' and/or the 'Fall of Ben Het,' as many other articles do to differentiate between battles and sieges taking place in the same area.
To merge the article with the Ben Het Camp article would be contradictory to the precedence taken on a vast majority of other articles regarding battles for forts, castles and bases, and thus I suggest to keep it. UncleBourbon (talk) 07:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • A redlink just means that someone put square brackets around a term, thinking a page exists, it doesn't "suggest an article for the battle was desired". Your comparison to Viet Cong attack on Tan Son Nhut Air Base (1966) is incorrect, Tan Son Nhut Air Base was already a massive page, adding a large amount of specific detail relating to the 1966 attack would have just bloated the Tan Son Nhut Air Base page. There is no issue with having details of the engagement on both the PT-76 page and on Ben Het Camp, the issue is that you have created a fork with only a few more specifics than what was already on Ben Het camp. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • If someone thought a page existed, and if the battle is significant enough to exist as a subsection of an article for a tank model that fought in it, then it is WP:N enough to warrant it's own article. For another more accurate comparison, you have Duc Lap Camp and the Battle of Duc Lap, as the Duc Lap Camp article is even smaller than the Ben Het Camp article, and again the Battle of Duc Lap article is allowed to exist alongside it. I could go on with other examples if you would like, since the problem you take with this article's existence truly goes against the precedent. "Only a few more specifics" is entirely your opinion; the Battle of Ben Het article mentions the forces stationed at Ben Het at the time of the battle, the activity observed prior to the battle, the names of participants and commanders within the battle, the order in which targets were sighted and positions they were taken out, the pursuit by the AC-47 'Spooky,' as well as various other details left out of the Ben Het Camp article.UncleBourbon (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The difference is the order of creation. I created Duc Lap Camp several years after another User created Battle of Duc Lap, because Battle of Duc Lap didn't have detail of the camp itself including its history before and after that battle. A better comparison would be Camp Carroll created in July 2006 and then the creation last November of Surrender of Camp Carroll which was soon merged back into Camp Carroll and First Battle of Quang Tri. Ben Het Camp already states the forces stationed there, the names of the participants and commanders is trivia unless any of them received a significant medal, the order of engagement is stated on Ben Het Camp and the use of an AC-47 can just be added to Ben Het Camp. Mztourist (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I fail to see the significance in the order of creation if we're discussing whether the articles can exist simultaneously. The point stands that if the Battle of Duc Lap can exist separately from Duc Lap Camp to provide greater detail on the battle, then the same is applicable for the Battle of Ben Het. You also haven't put the Battle of Duc Lap article up for deletion since it's details could all be moved to your Duc Lap Camp article, which is essentially what you're doing here. Information and significance are what matter, not date of creation. The fact it is the only true tank battle involving the United States in the Vietnam War, that there are two different articles already referencing it as the 'Battle of Ben Het,' and that it is well documented and of significance, makes it noteworthy enough to warrant it's own article for greater detail. Again, it is only your opinion that a paragraph on the Ben Het Camp article has sufficient detail, and that details such as participants and commanders are 'trivia.' The infobox alone for the Battle of Ben Het article has more details regarding the battle than the paragraph of the camp article, which is fine as it is an article for the camp, and not an article for the battle. It frankly makes no sense to turn a perfectly suitable full article of a battle into a drawn out section of your article on the camp it took place in just because you want the information there.UncleBourbon (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I completely disagree with you. Battle of Ben Het contains only additional trivia beyond what is contained on the Ben Het Camp page. There's clearly no point in us continuing this discussion as we won't reach agreement, so we will see how this AFD plays out. Mztourist (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 12:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep - Although relatively minor, notable as the only tank v tank engagement of the Vietnam war. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The only tank v tank engagement, involving the US. The North and South Vietnamese had plenty of such engagements. Mztourist (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Ah, yes, let me rephrase that, it's the only tank engagement involving US tanks in the Vietnam war. However as such, this makes it definitley notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Per WP:NOPAGE, I think this should be merged as proposed by the nominator. Both articles are quite short, so no information will be lost, but this engagement will presented in the context of other related events. (t · c) buidhe 07:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Merge with the article on Ben Het Camp proper. The majority of the border zone camps were subject to periodic attacks of varying severity so long as they existed (some even being under what might be considered a permanent state of siege). Merging this with the camp gives context to the engagement while still preserving its unique elements. Intothatdarkness 03:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep but also rename to include the date for clarity - the tank battle at Ben Het on 3-4 March 1969 is notable as the only US tank versus NVA tank battle of the Vietnam War and has received a lot of coverage because of that. See e.g., 1 2 3. The sources clearly distinguish this battle from the other battles that took part at the camp, and from the history of the camp in general. The nature of the Vietnam war meant that certain places were fought over all the time, but this being the case does not mean that there weren't much larger battles that were distinct from the continual drum-beat of combat around US/ARVN bases. "Ben Het Camp" is not a natural redirect for this subject and will surprise people searching for this specific battle, it is also not what we have done with Battle of Khe Sanh or the DMZ Campaign (1969–71) despite the existence of Khe Sanh Combat Base and Vietnamese Demilitarized Zone so consistency points towards not merging to the place where the combat took place. FOARP (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Ben Het Camp is a perfectly natural redirect and it would not "surprise people searching for this specific battle". The comparisons to Battle of Khe Sanh and DMZ Campaign (1969–71) are spurious as both were long battles/campaigns whereas Ben Het 1969 was just an overnight attack and trying to put either of those into Vietnamese Demilitarized Zone would completely overburden that page. Putting Battle of Khe Sanh (created in 2003) into Khe Sanh Combat Base (created as a redirect in 2007 and as a standalone page in 2012) would similarly overburden that page. Khe Sanh is probably the best known battle of the war, unlike the Ben Het attack which is relatively unknown (it has not "received a lot of coverage") and was just one of a series of attacks aimed at the camp. Mztourist (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Military Proposed deletions

The following articles have been tagged for proposed deletion:

Current PRODs

Military-related Images and media for Deletion

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

  • None at present

Military-related Miscellany for deletion

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

Military-related Templates for Deletion

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

None at present

Military-related Categories for Discussion

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

Military-related Redirects for Deletion

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

Military-related Possibly Unfree Files

  • None at present

Military-related Speedy Deletion

The following military-related Speedy Deletions are currently open:

None at present

Military-related Deletion Review

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

None at present

Military-related Requests for Undeletion

None at present

Military-related material at other deletion processes

None at present

Military related deletions on Commons

None at present

  1. ^ Cheema, G.S. The Forgotten Mughals: A History of the Later Emperors of the House of Babar, 1707-1857. p. 294. After their easy success at Sirhind, the Marathas advanced further, the Afghans evacuating the Bist Doab and, on 19 April, Lahore as well. The forces of Prince Timur were weak, and the Lahore fort in disrepair; so the viceroy evacuated the Punjab rapidly without risking another engage ment. The Deccani cavalry chased them as far as the Indus, but they did not try to cross the river, the traditional border of the Indian world. Nor do they ever appear to have ever garrisoned the fort of Attock which presumably remained in Durrani hands. But for a few months at least, the whole of Punjab including Multan, was dominated by the Marathas and their Sikh allies.
  2. ^ Singh, Khushwant. A History of the Sikhs: Volume 1: 1469-1838. pp. 142–143. As the Sikh and Maratha armies crossed the Sutlej, Jahan Khan, who was in the Jullundur Doab, hastily retired to Lahore. A few days later the entire Afghan army vacated the city and was in full retreat across the Ravi. Raghu Nath Rao entered Lahore in April 1758. Adina Beg Khan feted him at the Shalamar Gardens and had the city illuminated in his honour. While the festivities were going on in Lahore, Sikh and Maratha cavalry went in pursuit of the Afghan prince and his commander-in-chief. Taimur and Jahan Khan barely escaped with their lives when crossing the Chenab near Wazirabad. Their rearguard and heavy baggage were captured and brought back to Lahore. The Sikhs took the Afghan prisoners to Amritsar and made them clean up the pool around the Harimandir. The Marathas returned to Delhi the richer by several crores. Adina Beg Khan got what he wanted: the subedarī of the Punjab at seventy-five lacs of rupees a year to be paid to the Marathas.
  3. ^ Gandhi, Rajmohan. Punjab: A History from Aurangzeb to Mountbatten. Aleph Book Company. p. 103. ISBN 978-93-82277-58-3. Though the claim that their standard was raised on the walls of Attock on the Indus's eastern shore has been disputed, the Marathas, led by Raghunath Rao and aided by the Sikhs and by Adina, had pushed the Afghans out of India. However, Raghunath Rao did not pursue the Afghans beyond Chenab. He returned to Lahore, as did Adina.
  4. ^ Sarkar, Jadunath (1934). Fall Of The Mughal Empire Vol.2. The Marathas did not venture to carry the war across the Chenab, because the river was too deep for fording and the country beyond it was mostly tenanted by Afghan supporters of the Durrāni cause.......*Not a single Maratha soldier crossed the Chenab. The assertion that the Maratha standards were carried up to the Indus at Attock, is an ignorant boast.
<div style="font-size: x-small;">The article is a derivative under the <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License</a>. A link to the original article can be found <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Deletion_sorting%2FMilitary">here</a> and attribution parties <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Military&amp;action=history">here</a>. By using this site, you agree to the <a href="https://www.gpedia.com/terms-of-use.php">Terms of Use</a>. Gpedia Ⓡ is a registered trademark of the Cyberajah Pty Ltd.</div>