Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Military|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Military.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military/archive

watch

Military and combat

Matiur Rahman (army officer)

Matiur Rahman (army officer) (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 · TWL)

BIO1E per article. No objection to a redirect to Assassination of Ziaur Rahman#Executed officers. Most of the article is about the event, and the event article covers it well. I don't see any sourced info worth a merge. A best this is a completely unneed CFORK.  // Timothy :: talk  00:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Military, and Bangladesh. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Changfeng (missile)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Changfeng (missile)
• Articles for deletion/Changfeng (missile) (2nd nomination)

Changfeng (missile) (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 · TWL)

Entirely non-notable. All listed sources appear to be primary or simple databases. Wikipedia is not a database. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and China. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I have realized that a discussion has already occurred, but I did not know when making this nomination. Despite that, I stand by this deletion. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Frank E. Weiss

Frank E. Weiss (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 · TWL)

Non-notable college basketball player and Army officer. Subject of WP:ROUTINE coverage in high school and almost nothing afterwards. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBASKETBALL, and WP:BIO. Hirolovesswords (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Military, Basketball, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:GNG, also page created by a User who made minimal contributions and appears to be related to the subject. Mztourist (talk) 03:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of notability as a military figure. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Franciszek Krajowski

Franciszek Krajowski (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 · TWL)

20th century military general of unclear notability. According to the Polish Wikipedia, he was awarded the Virtuti Militari, but don't know if that helps him pass our notability standards, as WP:SOLDIER has been deprecated. Natg 19 (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Austria, Hungary, and Poland. Natg 19 (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Keep Article has sourcing issues, topic does not. Aside from the Virtuti Militari, which is Poland’s highest military honor, I found this in-depth article from Radio Lublin https://radio.lublin.pl/2020/09/general-franciszek-krajowski-uhonorowany-w-terespolu-stanal-pomnik-bohatera-wojny-1920-roku/(https://radio-lublin-pl.translate.goog/2020/09/general-franciszek-krajowski-uhonorowany-w-terespolu-stanal-pomnik-bohatera-wojny-1920-roku/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp)

I see mentions in a variety of English language books on Polish history such as https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Ukrainian_Polish_Defensive_Alliance/2T9zYXqL56AC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Franciszek+Krajowski%22+-wikipedia&pg=PA107&printsec=frontcover, https://www.google.com/books/edition/Warsaw_1920/2oXUDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Franciszek+Krajowski%22+-wikipedia&pg=PA69&printsec=frontcover, https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Russian_Civil_War_1918_1921/3gACEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Franciszek+Krajowski%22+-wikipedia&pg=PA535&printsec=frontcover, https://www.google.com/books/edition/Roma_Gypsy_Presence_in_the_Polish_Lithua/C_4OEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Franciszek+Krajowski%22+-wikipedia&pg=PA245&printsec=frontcover. There are also a number of Polish language sources. I acknowledge none of these English sources are in particular detail, but there is sufficient bulk that he seems to be at least reasonably well known based on Polish language sources.

Biographical information is apparently also available in Generalicja Polska (I & II), by Henryk P. Kosk.

Accordingly, I think there’s enough coverage here to support notability under GNG or BIO.Jo7hs2 (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Zachary Selden

Zachary Selden (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 · TWL)

Deputy UN Secretary's don't have automatic notability. With an h-Index of 9, and no qualifying academic positions, he doesn't meet WP:NSCHOLAR, and he doesn't have enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Politicians, Military, and California. TJMSmith (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete: I think this one is quite marginal, falling on the fail side of that line. He's certainly accomplished, and I was able to find a few ([1][2]) academic reviews of his 1999 book, but he seems to fall short of both WP:NPROF and WP:NAUTHOR. I wouldn't be surprised if, and in fact expect, him to become notable sometime in the next decade, but he's simply not there at the moment. Preference to an WP:ATD redirect, but I can't figure out one that works. Curbon7 (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  As an adde., a small handful of reviews concentrated on a single book is not typically sufficient for NAUTH. Curbon7 (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  out of curiosity, why would a book with several independent reviews not qualify as as WP:NAUTHOR#3: " major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews," - it seems a book with the amount of citations and independent reviews would fulfill the two criteria (well-known and independent reviews). Though one may argue that an article about the book itself would be more appropriate in that case than an article about the author. --hroest

• Keep: I think this one is a good start. It could maybe use some more, which is in progress, but I think the article already meets criteria 7 of WP:NPROF which requires that "[a] person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." Selden seems to have met that through his work in NATO and his well published commentary on NATO expansion, especially in the last year. Criteria 1 of WP:NAUTHOR seems to have been met as well, requiring that "the person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Selden has been fairly widely cited given the sources that are already present, if this needs to be confirmed by additional sources, then so be it, but already as is this seems to be the case. All of this is to say, sure, it could use some work and is clearly a work in progress, but I think its a good start and the article already demonstrates its notability. - Navarre0107 (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Keep: per WP:NAUTHOR based on the two reviews found by Curbon7. --hroest 17:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

In addition to the two reviews above, I also found these [3] [4] [5] which gives a total of 5 reviews of two independent books. --hroest 19:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Ethiopian civil conflict (2018–present)

Ethiopian civil conflict (2018–present) (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 · TWL)

This is a article of unrelated conflicts in Ethiopia from 2018 to now presented as a single conflict. It even mentions the 2022 al-Shabaab invasion of Ethiopia and lists al-Shabaab as a belligerent despite no sources of al Shabaab having any link with other ethnic conflicts in Ethiopia, they are separate and unrelated conflicts. Same goes for the Oromia–Somali clashes, the Afar–Somali clashes, the Amhara Region coup d'état attempt and many more. The article does not even try to explain the relation between all these conflicts and just list and briefly explains them. While it is true that many liberation fronts did work and fight together, especially in the Tigray War. Only in this Wikipedia article is every single conflict in one country treated as a single "conflict". Imagine someone did this for every single country on Wikipedia. This is like combining all conflicts in Nigeria such as the Conflict in the Niger Delta, Herder–farmer conflicts in Nigeria and the Boko Haram insurgency into one "Nigerian Civil conflict" regardless if theyre related or not. This is exactly what this article is trying to do. WP:SYNTH as none of the sources cited suggests that all of these conflicts are related or linked. محرر البوق (talk) 01:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Ethiopia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. If the issue is lack of reliable sources for the al-Shabaab invasion, then adding a Tag is more appropriate than nominating it for deletion. Ethnic violence in Ethiopia since the 2018 regime change is a very series and an ongoing issue. The article covered most of the conflicts happening in various regions. From the dynamic nature of the issue, sections may need updating but as far as one can see, the Outline itself adequately shows the various ethnic conflicts discussed. Could you please state which ethnic conflict is not covered? Petra0922 (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  Ethnic violence in Ethiopia has been ongoing for a very long time, way before 2018 (many of the wars listed predate 2018), and it will undoubtedly continue into the future. The problem is the article is attempting to group up these many different ethnic insurgencies into one single war, despite no adequate sources. What is the connection between the Afar–Somali clashes, the 2020–2022 Ethiopian–Sudanese clashes and the Oromo conflict? Nothing. They are completely different wars/insurgencies that have no connections with each other, but according to this article, they are the same conflict. محرر البوق (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  These are not all a single organised conflict, but they cannot be completely separated from the wider Ethiopian sociopolitical context, nor completely from each other. To take the current state of those three articles:

  • Afar–Somali clashes: In 2014, the federal government, headed by the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), redrew the boundary between the two regions. As a result ... – this is a consequence of EPRDF/TPLF ethnic federalism;
  • 2020–2022 Ethiopian–Sudanese clashes: With the outbreak of the Tigray War, Sudanese forces were able to move into the region due to an agreement with Ethiopia just three days before. When Amhara militants left to assist the federal government in the war, Sudanese forces started to ... – related to the Tigray War;
  • Oromo conflict – see TDF–OLA joint offensive: The TDF–OLA joint offensive was a series of military battles starting in late October 2021 opposing a coalition of the Tigray Defense Forces (TDF) and Oromo Liberation Army (OLA) against the Ethiopian National Defense Forces (ENDF) ... The TDF and OLA confirmed a military alliance against the federal forces. The military actions of the TDF-OLA coalition were seen by the federal authorities as a threat to Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia. – related to the Tigray War;

  Boud (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  It seems the examples Boud provided elaborated this point. Petra0922 (talk) 10:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The scope of this article is to give an overview of the various armed conflicts in Ethiopia from 2018 to the present. Abiy Ahmed became prime minister in 2018, making 2018 a natural and uncontroversial historical breaking point in Ethiopian history: Al Jazeera 2019, There is growing concern that Ethiopia's prime minister has failed to address rising ethnic tensions and violence, describes ethnic armed conflicts in Ethiopia as a single topic related to the Abiy epoch. The Ethiopia-wide debate about ethnic federalism and armed conflict for or against perceived or real centralisation or decentralisation are covered by many sources for pre-2018 and 2018+, e.g. Journal of Contemporary African Studies 2007; Canadian Journal of African Studies 2016; Wilson Center 2021; Insight on Africa 2022.
  Some synthesis has crept into the article, such as the choice of section titles with 'pre-war' and 'Course of the war', which I have renamed just now to reduce the risk of WP:SYNTHESIS. Both the lead and the Background section would benefit from some major rewriting and good sourcing to avoid the risk of reach[ing] or imply[ing] a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. There is also a need to have more content from sources that place the various armed conflicts in their constitutional/political context, while leaving detailed content of the individual conflicts in the individual articles.
  A possible option could be to propose reverting the title change back to Ethiopian civil conflict under Abiy Ahmed's administration to clarify that there's no claim of "a single war", but I wouldn't expect that to gain support. Boud (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  Do you think that this article should be structured similarly to Opposition to Haile Selassie? I believe that removing the infobox will significantly improve this page as there's too many belligerents and makes things much more messy. محرر البوق (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Boud محرر البوق (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  @محرر البوق: I think a structure similar to Opposition to Haile Selassie would be fine, but matched to the actual events during the Abiy epoch. Something more or less chronological, but also geographical/political, showing how Abiy/his government either influenced, was influenced by, or ignored the various armed conflicts. The title could probably be thrown open for debate in a new section on the talk page: e.g. Ethiopian civil conflicts (2018–present) (adding the 's' for plural); or an equivalent to Ethiopian civil conflict under Abiy Ahmed's administration to avoid the figurative sense of "under", e.g. civil conflicts during the Abiy Ahmed administration or civil conflicts during the Abiy Ahmed government (no need for 'Ethiopian': there's only one Abiy Ahmed government/administration in world history, as far as I know). I don't think Opposition to ... would work, because not all of the armed conflicts are directly against the federal government.

  I tend to think that being WP:BOLD and removing the infobox would be reasonable, since the infobox does give the impression that there's a single conflict – currently it shows "four sides" (with al-Qaeda/al-Shabaab as "one side"), and says that "the conflict" started all of a sudden exactly two days after Abiy became prime minister. Both of these "statements" in the infobox are, to put it bluntly, ridiculous, or more diplomatically, highly misleading. However, it would be good after removing the infobox to open a talk page section for people who disagree or don't understand the reasoning: the issues of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are both relevant to other Ethiopia-related articles, and newish editors may not understand why earlier editors developed these guidelines - or may disagree with them. Boud (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Boud: Alright I will remove the infobox soon and add more information later this week. I also would support a title change aswell. Personally, a removal of the "(2018–present)" would seem sufficient to me. But I would 100% support a full title change to "civil conflicts during the Abiy Ahmed administration" too. I think the best title would be "Ethnic violence during the Abiy Ahmed administration" so information about ethnic massacres and such could be added as well. But either one is fine to me. محرر البوق (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  @محرر البوق:, @Boud, The characteristics of the Haile Selassie and Abiy Ahmed′s rulings are completely different. Too many conflicting parties are involved since 2018, as listed in the Infobox. Isn't the point of the article to capture the nature of the various conflicts and participants? As for the title, if it needs to change to Ethiopian civil conflict under Abiy Ahmed's administration then, I would suggest adding his formal last name, Ali to the title. Petra0922 (talk) 10:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Warfare theater of Rudniki Forest

Warfare theater of Rudniki Forest (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 · TWL)

The article name yields no results on Google Books and Google Scholar. It is a neologism and a clear case of original research with minimal content as well. Following WP:DEL-REASON, it's a case of number 6. Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Germany, and Lithuania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• Keep: I'm skeptical a proper WP:BEFORE search was conducted, considering a perfunctory search using a more accurate term returned this online source by Yad Vashem, as well as this book and this journal article. The article needs a rename, as the current name is an editor creation not reflective of reliable sources, but it is a bit misleading to state that a search returned nothing if you searched using an incorrect term. In addition, there are clear potential merge targets that have not been considered as WP:ATDs, such as Jewish resistance in German-occupied Europe and Jewish partisans. Curbon7 (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Curbon7 There are no articles on Wikipedia titled "Warfare theater of ..." That's clearly a neologism. The article's scope is unclear, while also being very much WP:OR, because there is no such thing as "Battle of Rudniki Forest", etc. in WP:RS. Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah obviously that was a unilateral page move made by a single editor. Curbon7 (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• Merge to a proper location as suggested above unless some serious sourcing can be added and the article written in something approaching proper format and style. If enough information is added, I can see changing to Keep if the action proves notable on its own. Intothatdarkness 16:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Weird title, there was of course warfare in Rudniki forest, it was one of the main partisan bases in the region, Soviet, Polish and Jewish partisans were stationing there for sure; and there was a Battle of Surkonty, but it already have an article. Since there is no much to merge really, I think we should delete Marcelus (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• Merge to a consensus target(s). It seems this is a poorly source fork, that could be much better covered in related articles. There are several viable options for a target, no reason it can't be adapted to more than one. This title is not a good candidate for a redirect, but if there is a consensus for one, I have no objection.  // Timothy :: talk  21:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Yevgenia Dudka

Yevgenia Dudka (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 · TWL)

Fails GNG, BASIC, ANYBIO. Article is a 1E BIO. Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Sources in article are routine, and do not show notability beyond 1E. BEFORE showed nothing more. If anyone finds IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth showing this is not a 1E, ping me  // Timothy :: talk  18:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete - sadly, just a soldier and a victim of war. Her rank is not a point of notability, nor is anything within the article indicative of such. There is a stark lack of establishing a notability throughout, and leaving the article open for improvements will never change this. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable. ImperialMajority (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  ImperialMajority, yes, this article should probably be deleted, but I have removed the first sentence of that statement. The WP:BLP policy applies everywhere, not just in articles, and that is a clear breach. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Comment. I didn't like the comment at all and I thought it was WP:IDL, but she is not living, so I don't think BLP applies. CT55555(talk) 23:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  WP:BLP applies to the recently deceased as well as the living. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  I did not know that. Thanks for pointing that out. Apologies for my error. CT55555(talk) 21:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. How User:TimothyBlue, doe she fail WP:ANYBIO, when she has a Order for Courage. That seems like a pass of criterion 1. CT55555(talk) 00:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Reply: She received the third class of the award, which is a sixth level award from Hero of Ukraine. ANYBIO states "People are likely to be notable" if they have received; if this passes ANYBIO (I don't think it does), the subject is still only "likely" to be notable, ANYBIO does even use the word presumed. In this case the award is connected to 1E, there are no other sources showing notability and ANYBIO doesn't provide any exception from notability guidelines, it simply says they are "likely" to be notable.

  No objection to a merge and redirect to an article about the event per 1E, if the article is created and has sources showing notability.

  I have added the information and references from uk wikipedia to the article.  // Timothy :: talk  00:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Nothing noteworthy about her service. WP:ANYBIO criterion 1 "a well-known and significant award" is usually held to mean the nation's highest award. Order for Courage (3rd grade) is not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Reply: this leaves me confused about how to vote. Clearly you've bee doing this for a while so I trust your comment. And yet "the nation's highest" seems like a much higher bar than "well-known and significant". I'm now wondering what obligation there is on me to run with tradition or my own reading of the guidance. That said, I don't actually know how well known the award is, I just see it made the news. I think I'll watch how the conversation progresses and stay out until/unless I gain a better understanding. CT55555(talk) 01:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Mztourist (talk) 09:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Jean Raymond Gottlieb

Jean Raymond Gottlieb (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 · TWL)

Do we have an article on this guy just because he may or may not be the father of a princess's child or has he actually been the subject of in-depth coverage by reliable sources? I, for one, do not see it. Or is this a case of a person notable for a single (impregnation) event? You be the judge! Surtsicna (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and France. Surtsicna (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete WP:BLPGOSSIP: Avoid repeating gosip. "Rumoured" isn't good enough. And with that and the unsourced stuff removed, there isn't anything left. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

David Doyle (writer)

David Doyle (writer) (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 · TWL)

Can't find any sources referencing this author. Article is written in a very promotional tone. (Indeed, an editor with the same name has edited it extensively.) SWinxy (talk) 04:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

After a short search, I found a considerable number of articles, that cite works of Doyle, David as sources, including: 2½-ton 6×6 truck, 5-ton 6×6 truck, 6-ton 6×6 truck, Autocar U8144T 5- to 6-ton 4×4 truck, Brockway Motor Company, Chevrolet G506, Diamond T, Diamond T 4-ton 6×6 truck, Dodge M37, Dodge T-, V-, W-Series, Dodge WC series, DUKW, Gama Goat, GMC CCKW 2½-ton 6×6 truck, Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck, Hercules DFXE, Jim Allen (4x4 writer), K-31 truck, Kaiser Jeep M715, Kenworth 10-ton 6x6 heavy wrecking truck, List of soft-skinned vehicles of the US military, List of United States Army tactical truck engines, M10 tank destroyer, M123 and M125 10-ton 6x6 trucks, M151 ¼-ton 4×4 utility truck, M19 Tank Transporter, M2 High Speed Tractor, M274 ½-ton 4×4 utility platform truck, M35 series 2½-ton 6×6 cargo truck, M39 series 5-ton 6×6 truck, M520 Goer, M6 Bomb Service Truck, M809 series 5-ton 6×6 truck, M816 Wrecker, M939 series 5-ton 6×6 truck, Mack NM 6-ton 6x6 truck, Mack NO 7½-ton 6x6 truck, Mack Trucks, Mack Trucks in military service, Pz.Sfl. Ia, Steven Zaloga, Studebaker US6 2½-ton 6×6 truck, Willys Go Devil engine, Willys MB, amongst others .. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, History, and Military. SWinxy (talk) 04:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Cadet College Fateh Jang

Cadet College Fateh Jang (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 · TWL)

Hardly any significant coverage in reliable sources. Two cited sources are not significant as one is a press release and other one an opinion piece by a student. Doesn't pass WP:NSCHOOL. BookishReader (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Weak keep - Found some coverage in independent sources: Daily Times, Academia Magazine, Daily Dunya (Urdu), Daily Dunya (Urdu). Insight 3 (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  Though I don't have access to this book Educational Guide of Pakistan, Volume 3, p. 193 but it may have some significant coverage of the college. Insight 3 (talk) 04:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• Keep In light of the above comment about having found some additional news coverage, editors should be given a chance to further improve the article. Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

college is affiliated with higher education commission government of pakistan @Higher Education Commission Pakistan also found affiliation proof of this college with education board @Rawalpindi Board , Punjab Pakistan and found results for year 2022 of this institution Board of Intermediate and secondary education Rawalpindi, punjab Jhonwilliam10 (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Good effort by Jhonwilliam10 above to locate a Higher Education Commission of Pakistan (Punjab branch) source: Detail of Private Sector Colleges in Punjab (page 49 0f 73)...Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

  Serial no 993 👍 Jhonwilliam10 (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Delete lacks WP:SIGCOV. Daily Times is a "news desk" article, Academia Magazine has no editorial oversight (I can't find its about us), Daily Dunya ones are routine news reports so doesn't pass WP:ORGDEPTH criteria. Unfortunately, another bad news, only hope: "Educational Guide of Pakistan, Volume 3" was published in 2000 and this college was founded in 2001 so clearly we can't expect anything from that book. Affiliation with regulatory authorities mean nothing from notability point of view. Ping me if anyone finds significant coverage. WP:ILIKEIT and vote counts doesn't matter. 2400:ADC1:468:400:7DD6:C651:21F1:A243 (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Caaqil Dheryodhoobe

Caaqil Dheryodhoobe (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 · TWL)

Scattered youtube videos are all there is about this individual. Non-notable military person? The article is poorly written and I can't tell what the individual being discussed has or hasn't done. Oaktree b (talk) 03:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 03:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  Article is about a notable intelligent chief who, in one folk tale paid blood money in goats instead of camels, justifying through a haiku poem to say what 2 traits goats have with men, horses, camels and cows. Abshir55 (talk) 04:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Theres a footnote source mentioning "the wise caaqil dheryodhoobe" in a passage mentioning garaad wiilwaal where both are known legends? The source itself is a western source that even studied from somali government stories? There are alot more stories and examples i can add in the page on the mans life by translating the links from laashin.com and himilonetwork.com Abshir55 (talk) 04:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Qarawal

Battle of Qarawal (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 · TWL)

The article Battle of Qarawal is on the same topic as Battle of Lahore (1764). The article Battle of Qarawal is completely problematic which relies on only one source which basically is a translation of a contemporary source. Even the title of the article is incorrect as Qarawal is not a location but a strong contingent as mentioned in the source of the article itself. Also there are reliable sources by accredited historians that claim that the battle ended with both parties retiring at nightfall. Therefore, there was no victory for either party. Rather the battle was inconclusive. Javerine (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

User @Javerine has went on a spin-off argument from the main deletion page request for his page at [6], Please read there for whoever handles this deletion request. Noorullah (talk) 01:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Both sources do not mention what User Javerine is trying to potray with his page of Battle of Lahore (1764), further explained on the talk page of the Battle of Lahore itself,[7] and the deletion request I put up for it. Noorullah (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Shellwood (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• MISTAKES ABOUT THIS ARTICLE
  

MISTAKE 1: The source on the article Battle of Qarawal, clearly states that "When the army went to the battle-field, their camps, kitchens, families and servants known as Bahir-o~Bungah .were left in charge of a strong contingent, which was called Qarawal. * Jang Namah, 83." This is mention at the bottom on page number 201 [8].
MISTAKE 2: The article is strictly is based on one source which is basically a translation of contemporary source Jang Namah, written by Nur Muhammad who was brought along with his masters to record his master's campaign. And historian have called his source, though valuable, but bias, prejuidice, discriminatory, very one-sided and based on personal observation.
MISTAKE 3: Noorullah keeps repeating that the reliable sources on my article by accredited historians do not claim that "The battle ended with both parties retired at nightfall. Here are the source links for anyone to verify: Page 216 [9] by historian Hari Ram Gupta and here is another source, Page 299 [10] by historian Ganda Singh (historian).
So based on all above information, article Battle of Qarawal is completely problematic and errors, including the outcome of the battle, which I have clearly stated as "Inconclusive" on Battle of Lahore (1764). User Noorullah clearly didn't study the sources on his article Battle of Qarawal and didn't make effort to study the sources on my article either. Javerine (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but your point about the "Jang Namah" being an unreliable contemporary source also applies to every source you just listed? It is within the bottom of all the books you just posted that they follow the Jang Namah. As you can see with the following: [11] [12]

Also the same account is of Hari Singh Nawla's writing, though you are saying it as if it was another source, when it was the same writer. Noorullah (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you are not understading. Its what the historians analyze that is considered reliable by studying such contemporary sources. Jang Namah is considered valuable as it sheds light on events but you can see that historians when giving their own analysis, ignore the brava and prejudice observations, of a source, serving the master. Such as historian Ganda Singh said, "lts true that the Jang Nama, presents only one side piccture and that too from a bigoted crusader’s angle of vision. But that does not detract much from its historical value. In spite of his strong prejudice against the Sikhs, whom he remembers in no better words than dogs, dogs of hell, accursed infidels, unclean idolaters, fire-worshippers, etc., his description of the character of the Sikhs of the eighteenth century is invaluable to the students of history. And its value is immeasurably enhanced when we know that it is from the pen of one of their worst enemies, who prayed to God and appealed to the crusaders to destroy them root and branch. In short, the book has a great significance as a comtemporary historical document for the history of Ahmad Shah and the Sikhs". So that we is why instead of directly drawing from contemporary source, we have to use secondary sources written by historians who based their findings, study and analysis of such contemporary sources to draw conclusion.Javerine (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Where does this "quote" come from? You have completely made this quote without any citation? If you are also jumping between arguments about the Jang Nama.. calling it firstly "one-sided" and implying that it could not be trusted, then to now it could be because of its historical value?

Furthermore.. in those other sources it was just the Jang Nama cited? So how does that prove anything other then the contemporary source was used? The other part of Ram Gupta's source was a 1908 British Gazetter.

Regardless, I am not gonna respond further and let whoever handles the deletion requests to deal with this. Noorullah (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Why aren't you trying to make an effort as I already provided the link before. Historian Ganda Singh's opinion on Jang Namah is on page 420 [13]. Yes its better for others to make decisions. Javerine (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

You did not provide the citation or link to that page whatsoever during the course of this dispute. Noorullah (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I provided the link before in the discussion with Ganda Singh's book. All you had to do was run a search. Javerine (talk) 02:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

"Run a search", for what? That's not the purpose of the argument, your supposed to back up what your saying with citations. Noorullah (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Noticed something very sneaky while the above discussion was going on. So Noorullah copied the source from article written by me Battle of Lahore (1764) and falsely attributed it on the article written by him Battle of Qarawal where it states that Qarawal is a location and where it states that "As the rest of the Durrani reinforcements came into battle, The Sikhs were routed from the battlefield, and fled from the battle at night." Here is the change he made [14] and here [15], when its clearly mentioned in the source that "It was a bitter contest and came to close only by nightfall". Here is for everyone to verify the source [16]. Also no where does the source mention Qarawal as a location, so why falsely attribute the source during this above discussion. I rest my case. Javerine (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't "copy the source", you complained about there not being enough sources on the page of Battle of Qarawal, as a result I added Singh's citations in the appropriate areas, including the area where it said about a nightfall. The former was Ram Gupta's.. and then Singh's SFN for the battle concluding at nightfall. I'm not sure why you are pretending this is something sneaky to slip in?

  It says "A Place Near Lahore" in the article, while Ram Gupta mentions reinforcements were sent to Qarawal, how is this falsely attributing? You are meant to assume good faith rather then put out accusations to such matters. Noorullah (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  And so I quote "As the rest of the Durrani reinforcements came into battle, The Sikhs were routed from the battlefield, and fled from the battle at night." The then cited sources were Ram Gupta and Singh. Noorullah (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment This is just an observation but this AFD discussion has only existed for a couple of hours and it's already preoccupied with you two bickering. The more you argue with each other, the less likely that other editors will want to participate in this discussion. You need to offer your opinion and then step away and let other editors look over the content and sources and weigh in with their opinions. You need to make space for other participants. If this "discussion" just becomes you two talking to each other, it's likely to close with no decision being made at all. So think of what your goal is and act accordingly. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'd redirect to the 1764 battle as mentioned. No comment on the above "discussion", but please keep it related to the AfD being reviewed. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment since both articles don't need duplicate discussions, I have commented at Battle of Lahore (1764).  // Timothy :: talk  13:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more comments regarding merging (and if so to what?), redirecting, or simply deleting. Same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Lahore (1764).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Lahore (1764)

Battle of Lahore (1764) (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 · TWL)

This page confuses the Battle of Qarawal for "a battle at Lahore" here. See [17]

Sources point to this battle being at Qarawal, and I had already made a page for the Battle of Qarawal. The infobox also has incorrect information saying that it was inconclusive, and that both the Sikhs and Afghans withdrew, to which, one of the main cited sources of the article says that the Sikhs were routed, and affirmed an Afghan victory, see here: [18] Noorullah (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Shellwood (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

For some reason, user @Javerine attempted to log a deletion request on the Battle of Qarawal itself without responding to anything here, or mentioned on the former talk page. (They also did not attempt to discuss it on the talk page either, or even open a deletion discussion). See here: [19] Noorullah (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

SHouldn't you have discussed the matter before submitting my article for deletion without even properly studying the sources? Why didn't you have discussion in the first place before submitting my article for deletion? You article is Battle of Qarawal is clearly problematic, even the title itself.Javerine (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I..did study the sources, I pointed it out to you in the talk page of the article you created, I linked it multiple times and even said what the issue was here. So I am not sure why you are accusing me of not pointing that out.

You saying "the article is clearly problematic" does not refute any of the things said, especially with whats said in the source which you still for some reason tried to summarize it as "inconclusive", when the source clearly stated that the Sikh forces were routed.

I listed it for deletion because it is effectively the exact same page as Battle of Qarawal, except the page you created pushes forward that the battle was inconclusive, which is contradicted by the sources. Noorullah (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I will come back to the problems with your article. Give me few mins. Javerine (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I would like to furthermore add the second source for Singh does not mention that the Afghans withdrew as of nightfall either? And instead leaves the results vague and just after leads to Ahmad Shah Durrani congratulating Nasir Khan and warning him to stay away from frontline of battle.

This, meaning you completely made up the inconclusive remark. As none of the sources you had in the article mentions the Afghans withdrawing, and only Ram Gupta's mentions that the Sikhs were routed.[20] (Singh's account on the battle, is vague and doesn't mention the Afghans withdrawing) [21] (Ram Gupta's account, mentions the Sikhs being routed)

Alongside this, the "battle" according to Singh isn't even at Lahore itself, which you named the article. The source says "a battle near Lahore"[22] Noorullah (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

So with this, the main two sources on the article clearly don't allign with what the page is attempting to potray. The battle can clearly be seen as not being inconclusive, but rather, an Afghan victory as the Sikhs were routed (See Ram Gupta's source). Noorullah (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• This article Battle of Lahore (1764) is completely reliable compared to Battle of Qarawal which has issues starting with the title itself as Qarawal is not even a location. I will defend article Battle of Lahore (1764) based on this mistakes on Battle of Qarawal.
  

MISTAKES ABOUT THIS ARTICLE

MISTAKE 1: The source on the article Battle of Qarawal, clearly states that "When the army went to the battle-field, their camps, kitchens, families and servants known as Bahir-o~Bungah .were left in charge of a strong contingent, which was called Qarawal. * Jang Namah, 83." This is mention at the bottom on page number 201 [23].
MISTAKE 2: The article is strictly is based on one source which is basically a translation of various contemporary sources such as Jang Namah, written by Nur Muhammad who was brought along with his masters to record his master's campaign. And historian have called his source, though valuable, but bias, prejuidice, discriminatory, very one-sided and based on personal observation.
MISTAKE 3: Noorullah keeps repeating that the reliable sources on my article by accredited historians do not claim that "The battle ended with both parties retired at nightfall. Here are the source links for anyone to verify: Page 216 [24] by historian Hari Ram Gupta and here is another source, Page 299 [25] by historian Ganda Singh (historian).
So based on all above information, article Battle of Qarawal is completely problematic and errors, including the outcome of the battle, which I have clearly stated as "Inconclusive" on Battle of Lahore (1764). User Noorullah clearly didn't study the sources on his article Battle of Qarawal and didn't make effort to study the sources on my article either. Also according to Noorullah, to discredit my article by the reliable source by historians, he states that "Historians make mistakes",[26]. A pointless reason. Javerine (talk) 02:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but your point about the "Jang Namah" being an unreliable contemporary source also applies to every source you just listed? It is within the bottom of all the books you just posted that they follow the Jang Namah. As you can see with the following: [27] [28]

Also the same account is of Hari Singh Nawla's writing, though you are saying it as if it was another source, when it was the same writer. Noorullah (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you are not understanding. Its what the historians analyze that is considered reliable by studying such contemporary sources. Jang Namah is considered valuable as it sheds light on events but you can see that historians when giving their own analysis, ignore the brava and prejudice observations, of a source, serving the master. Such as historian Ganda Singh said, "lts true that the Jang Nama, presents only one side piccture and that too from a bigoted crusader’s angle of vision. But that does not detract much from its historical value. In spite of his strong prejudice against the Sikhs, whom he remembers in no better words than dogs, dogs of hell, accursed infidels, unclean idolaters, fire-worshippers, etc., his description of the character of the Sikhs of the eighteenth century is invaluable to the students of history. And its value is immeasurably enhanced when we know that it is from the pen of one of their worst enemies, who prayed to God and appealed to the crusaders to destroy them root and branch. In short, the book has a great significance as a comtemporary historical document for the history of Ahmad Shah and the Sikhs". So that we is why instead of directly drawing from contemporary source, we have to use secondary sources written by historians who based their findings, study and analysis of such contemporary sources to draw conclusion.Javerine (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Where does this "quote" come from? You have completely made this quote without any citation? If you are also jumping between arguments about the Jang Nama.. calling it firstly "one-sided" and implying that it could not be trusted, then to now it could be because of its historical value?

Furthermore.. in those other sources it was just the Jang Nama cited? So how does that prove anything other then the contemporary source was used? The other part of Ram Gupta's source was a 1908 British Gazetter.

Regardless, I am not gonna respond further and let whoever handles the deletion requests to deal with this. Noorullah (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Why aren't you trying to make an effort as I already provided the link before. Historian Ganda Singh's opinion on Jang Namah is on page 420 [29]. Yes its better for others to make decisions. Javerine (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

You did not provide the citation or link to that page whatsoever during the course of this dispute. Noorullah (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I provided the link before in the discussion with Ganda Singh's book. All you had to do was run a search. Javerine (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

"Run a search", for what? That's not the purpose of the argument, your supposed to back up what your saying with citations. Noorullah (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Noticed something very sneaky while the above discussion was going on. So Noorullah copied the source from article written by me Battle of Lahore (1764) and falsely attributed it on the article written by him Battle of Qarawal where it states that Qarawal is a location and where it states that "As the rest of the Durrani reinforcements came into battle, The Sikhs were routed from the battlefield, and fled from the battle at night." Here is the change he made [30] and here [31], when its clearly mentioned in the source that "It was a bitter contest and came to close only by nightfall". Here is for everyone to verify the source [32]. Also no where does the source mention Qarawal as a location, so why falsely attribute the source during this above discussion. I rest my case. Javerine (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't "copy the source", you complained about there not being enough sources on the page of Battle of Qarawal, as a result I added Singh's citations in the appropriate areas, including the area where it said about a nightfall. The former was Ram Gupta's.. and then Singh's SFN for the battle concluding at nightfall. I'm not sure why you are pretending this is something sneaky to slip in?

  It says "A Place Near Lahore" in the article, while Ram Gupta mentions reinforcements were sent to Qarawal, how is this falsely attributing? You are meant to assume good faith rather then put out accusations to such matters. Noorullah (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  And so I quote "As the rest of the Durrani reinforcements came into battle, The Sikhs were routed from the battlefield, and fled from the battle at night." The then cited sources were Ram Gupta and Singh. Noorullah (talk) 04:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: There are numerous problems in both articles. I'm actually inclined to delete both since they are both so biased; the authors that do not have the experience to write articles about controversial subjects.

Both authors are obviously POV pushing for their chosen side. That these articles were created at the same time (~40mins) shows a battleground mentality the closing admin should note for AE subject.

@Noorullah and Javerine: can you list the best two sources (per WP:RS, WP:V) that show what you believe the name of the article should be? No need to explain, I can read and just need the reference. Battleground is definetly a part of this so there is no need to respond to the other parties two sources. I intensely hate walls of text and POV refbombing.  // Timothy :: talk  13:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• Noorullah, your two sources are:
• Javerine, your two sources are: Page 299 [33] by historian Ganda Singh (historian) and Page 216 [34] by historian Hari Ram Gupta. Javerine (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

User:TimothyBlue, replied with two sources you asked for. Javerine (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Merge (with the usual redirect). The consensus above seems to be that the two battles are one and the same. If so, there should be a single article on it. I know nothing of the subject, but an AFD is not the right place for WP editors to seek to resolve conflicts as to precisely what happened. That is a matter to be resolved by reference to published historical works (being RS). Peterkingiron (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more comments regarding merging (and if so to what?), redirecting, or simply deleting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Military Proposed deletions

The following articles have been tagged for proposed deletion:

Current PRODs

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

Military-related Images and media for Deletion

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

• None at present

Military-related Miscellany for deletion

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

Military-related Templates for Deletion

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

None at present

Military-related Categories for Discussion

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

Military-related Redirects for Deletion

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

Military-related Possibly Unfree Files

• None at present

Military-related Speedy Deletion

The following military-related Speedy Deletions are currently open:

None at present

Military-related Deletion Review

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

None at present

Military-related Requests for Undeletion

None at present

Military-related material at other deletion processes

None at present

Military related deletions on Commons

None at present