Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military

Social history of soldiers and veterans in the United States

Social history of soldiers and veterans in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:COATRACK. A compilation of largely unrelated events, many of them not about the "social history" but about military actions. Ranging from living conditions of prisoners of war to guerrilla fighting in the Philippines to militias killing Native Americans. Fram (talk) 09:36, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Social science, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 09:36, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Agree 100% with nominator; this is a grab bag of different historical events that have nothing to do with one another except involvement of the US military. Many sections, especially the earlier ones, don't have any "social" history and are just recaps of the event. WP:COATRACK indeed. The article is very well-written (almost entirely by one editor over the past 2 years) and I have to wonder if some AI use weren't involved (not for writing the article, but for compiling all these different historical vignettes based on scholarly books). I hate to support deletion of a well-written and -sourced article, but it all adds up to nothing, bordering on WP:ESSAY in the end. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 10:47, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

DoD Inspector General Medal for Superior Civilian Service

DoD Inspector General Medal for Superior Civilian Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:58, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Military-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:13, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Beau Bayh

Beau Bayh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose redirecting to Evan Bayh because it was already settled in the previous deletion discussion that the page should be redirected. It was restored for, from what I can tell, no consensus or reason. CSP3945 (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of People-related AfD discussions. CSP3945 (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep It was not "restored". I made a new page. This is the version that was redirected in November 2025. Since then, there has been enough new coverage to meet WP:GNG, especially this lengthy piece from Politico in April 2026. I also found old coverage on Newspapers.com to strengthen that case. An outdated "redirect" decision is not a valid reason to redirect again. WP:CCC. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, Indiana, Massachusetts, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:56, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep. Creating a new article that overcomes the reasons for deletion has never required a discussion, although in some cases it can be the best practice. In any case, the coverage in the article here is more than enough to meet the GNG. Katzrockso (talk) 02:19, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect NOTINHERITED and doesn't meet NPOL (he's a candidate for a state secretary of state position). The sources here are mainly local "interest" stories about him and his twin brother doing normal stuff: being born, turning 12, going to college, joining the military. None of that is worthy of Notability. Even if he wins the secretary of state position there needs to be more than routine coverage/news for him to meet NPOL. Lamona (talk) 04:48, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Marzola Blockhouse

Marzola Blockhouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Military, and Italy. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
• Merge with Maranza Battery as AtD. Mccapra (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

List of surviving Fokker D.VIIs

List of surviving Fokker D.VIIs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is not in fact a list, but text cut out of Fokker D.VII. As a subtopic, it is not notable; or at least it cites no sources citing these surviving aircrafts as a group. This should be merged back to Fokker D.VII#Surviving aircraft. Sandstein 19:33, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related AfD discussions. Sandstein 19:33, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
• Merge – per WP:PAGEDECIDE. FaviFake (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
• Merge. There are other Lists of surviving military aircraft, but they're for types with many more survivors; this list is short enough to be included in Fokker D.VII. Adam Sampson (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, France, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, England, Canada, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:32, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Military-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:32, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

• Merge. @Adam Sampson's logic is solid that when there is a small number of survivors it does not make sense to have a standalone list. Khalitate (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

• Merge, although I don't necessarily agree with the reasoning above. The aircraft on the linked list are all World War II or later. Still, it's short enough to go back in the main article. Intothatdarkness 16:27, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Tellumpoccoe War

Tellumpoccoe War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Note: This formal merge proposal was incorrectly opened. Following the March 2026 RfC, formal merge discussions are now held at AfD rather than the historical Proposed article mergers process (PAM). I've moved the comment from the diff to AfD per WP:TPO.

Moved from Special:Diff/1372603469

 – FaviFake (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Merge to Early history of Gowa and Talloq

Currently almost an exact copy of a subsection in the Gowa-Talloq article; in any case the multiple military conflicts during the period delineated here are almost never treated as a single "Tellumpoccoe War" in any historiographic work (both traditional and modern); see Talk page. --Swarabakti

Comment: Someone can add the full timestamp if they want by taking it from the diff. FaviFake (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:25, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Suleyman Dilbirligi

Suleyman Dilbirligi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose merging to Ayla: The Daughter of War because it lacks standalone notability per WP:Notability Iamcarbonmatter ♥ xoxo ✦ 16:51, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Strong Oppose: The subject meets WP:GNG independently of the film. Long before the 2017 film was created, his real-life search and 2010 reunion with Kim Eun-ja received extensive, multi-national, independent media coverage from major outlets. He is a historical figure, not just a media property. Also, merging his biography to the movie article will harm both articles. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Merging a real-life individual into an article about a movie based on their own life completely reverses basic logic. By this reasoning, historical figures like Oskar Schindler should have their standalone biographical articles deleted or merged into Schindler's List. The movie Ayla: The Daughter of War exists entirely because of Suleyman Dilbirligi's actual military service in Korea and history, not the other way around. A historical figure belongs in a standalone biography, not as a sub-topic of a commercial film script. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Oppose would cause massive confusion to merge this way - merging the film's subject into the film would just be very weird - there is sufficient notability, too (several articles before film's creation) to show his notability is not entirely because of the film (he's not a BIO1E). Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. Makes BIO and the move could be confusing. Khalitate (talk) 06:20, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Rommel offensive

Rommel offensive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article relies, on non academic sources. Going against "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes". It is also important to understand the title in it's context, without giving proof of it, the article overall, seems to be a series of embellished or distorted stories online with heavy ideological weight, rather, than something that can be attributed specifically to the name of the person hinted at the title. Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 04:05, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Croatia, Germany, Slovenia, and Yugoslavia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep for now. Deletion is not cleanup and I'm not seeing strong reasons for it in the nomination. Here is an English source, although it doesn't say much. Here is an Italian source using the term offensiva Rommel. Here is an English source using "Rommel offensive". Perhaps unsurprising that there isn't detailed treatment that is easy to find in English. Srnec (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

RN01-SS

RN01-SS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Only passing mentions. There has been no coverage established, failing WP:GNG. Yavuz Ben (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Firearms, Asia, China, and Indonesia. Yavuz Ben (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
• Weak keep -- it appears to have some independent coverage. . Not much outside of non-English sources, but we don't require sources to be in English. More likely this is an issue with the article name -- there is more coverage when searching for other names, e.g. Rudal Nasional 01 - Surface to Surface. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:14, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Type 92 grenade

Type 92 grenade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject doesn't seem notable enough. See WP:NPRODUCT, No references are used on the article, and there seems not to be many references on other sites aside from Wikipedia. Sevenstxrsquid 🌊 01:54, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
• I doubt NPRODUCT applies to a World War II-era Japanese army grenade. Nobody's trying to sell them. That said, overall notability may be an issue, I do wonder if the sources on Type 91 grenade might also cover the Type 92; a reminder that sources do not have to be online. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:52, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
• delete sourced entirely to primary sources, from the Japanese government at the time. One book mention , in what appears to be a work of fiction. Likely too specialized for our wiki; could be notable with sourcing, but we have none. Oaktree b (talk) 00:32, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - Available info originates only from primary sources. GenuineArt (talk) 02:18, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Suvorov's Italian campaign

Suvorov's Italian campaign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article was machine translated from it:Campagna italiana di Suvorov (without attribution). The author in the meanwhile has been indef blocked from the mainspace for this reason (among others). Another user (now also blocked, but for a different reason) has partially rewritten it, but the rewording is very partial, almost non-existent in the last two thirds of the article (the parts written by the original author are still more than 86% according to "who wrote that"). Without the intervention of the other user I'd have directly PROD'd the article, but even now I don't think that the article can remain in the mainspace. If someone wants to draftify it, it'd be fine by me, otherwise I think it's better if we wait for someone properly translating the original it.wiki article (which btw is really good) --Friniate ✉ 22:30, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Italy, and Russia. --Friniate ✉ 22:30, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per TNT. Agree the article cannot stay in its present form. Segaton (talk) 02:26, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&returnto=User+talk%3ADankJae&returntoquery=action%3Dedit Paste at bottom:

Fall of Rome (1849)

Fall of Rome (1849) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I've removed most of this article as part of the presumptive removal of LLM-generated content of the recent edits made by Giovanni Messe aka Archivio Italia (see AI cleanup investigation), who in the meanwhile has been blocked. What it's left are the parts that in the meanwhile have been partially reworded by other users (but please note that according to "who wrote that" the parts written by original author still account for 79% of the article). Now, some of the surviving parts are simply a rewording from Roman Republic (1849–1850). These parts are the less problematic, but obviously it wouldn't make sense to have an article made only of a copy of parts of another article. Unfortunately the other parts that are still there (in particular the paragraph "Initial assualts on Rome") seem to have been written through LLMs and the users who modified them have apparently only fixed the style but not the substance. For example, if I take the note number 15, I should find a page about Garibaldi's defence of Rome against Oudinot. But if I take a look at the indicated book and I go to page 227 (as written in the note), then I find a totally different topic (Garibaldi in the assembly of the Republic). The topic of the article is obviously notable, but I think that it'd be quicker to blow it up and start over, rather than checking the unreviewed (or at the very least unsufficiently reviewed) outcome of an LLM --Friniate ✉ 15:37, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Politics, Suspected AI-generated articles, and Italy. --Friniate ✉ 15:37, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The original editor, after promising to not add more articles and clean up LLM hallucinations, has not done so and has been blocked. Very clearly falls under WP:AIPROD. Upon first glance its clear on GPTZero but as stated previously its more about the hallucinations. I agree, lets blow it up and start over. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. There are already articles about the combatants. Most of this article is a rehearsal of the history surrounding the event. The meat of this article could easily be incorporated at its parent articles. Trumpetrep (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per the nom, articles like these are timesinks forced on the community by users that refuse to follow the guidelines. Let's not waste more time than absolutely needed on this, blow it up and then move on. If anyone wants to start over because they are interested in writing about the subject, they should have a clean slate to start from. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:16, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Destruction of the Rafi'-Nia synagogue

Destruction of the Rafi'-Nia synagogue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose merging to Rafi'-Nia synagogue because most of this article is reactions that could be condensed and included on the target page. Rainsage (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Support merge. Lf8u2 (talk) 03:21, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I Support the proposed merge. Sevenstxrsquid 🌊 04:18, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Judaism, Iran, and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:40, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Support But i would like to note that the destruction article was made first. VitoxxMass (talk) 08:23, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to Rafi'-Nia synagogue. This is part if the synagogue's history. A separate article makes no sense. No objection to reverse merge and rename if at all procedurally needed. That would just be technique. The important is that it lands at the synagogue's name. gidonb (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Merge to Rafi'-Nia synagogue. No reason for separate articles when they are this size. Luka Maglc (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

• Merge. A separate article specifically about the destruction is not necessary. Khalitate (talk) 08:02, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support merging to Rafi'-Nia synagogue. GenuineArt (talk) 02:24, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support per WP:OVERLAP. FaviFake (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
• Merge selectively as suggested and as reasonable in these circumstances. It doesn't make any sense out of context. Bearian (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Siege of Tripoli (1271)

Siege of Tripoli (1271) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There was no siege of Tripoli in 1271. Baybars didn't even reach the city. All that happened was after his recent conquest: he was marching toward Tripoli but stopped after hearing that Prince Edward had arrived in Acre. The content of the article never talks about the supposed siege taking place. Even the main source of this article, which is Mongols and Mamluks: The Mamluk-Ilkhanid War, 1260–1281, p. 125, says:

The Sultan had planned to attack Tripoli, but he then received news of the arrival of Prince Edward of England at Acre in the spring of 669/1271, at the head of a body of troops. He thought it wise to conclude a truce with Bohemond VI, Count of Tripoli and now titular Prince of Antioch.

More sources state there was never a siege. & عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of History-related AfD discussions. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Lebanon. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• As an alternative to deletion, trim the article and retitle it Truce of Tripoli (1271). I am loathe to delete an article from 2007 just because it was sloppily titled. Better to correct the record than just scrub it clean. There is enough material to cover: Baybars' letter to Bohemond, the latter's response, the terms of the truce, Baybars' movements. Srnec (talk) 01:05, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

  Sounds like a wonderful idea; I could work on that, but after this AFD discussion. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep and either Merge or Rename. Though the specific term "Siege" may not be shared in all sources, there was clearly a lot of military activity in the area, led by Baybars. It would be a loss to Wikipedia simply to delete this because of a disagreement in terminology. --Elonka 13:40, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep and merge or rename. I fully agree with Srnec and Elonka on this.

‍🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 15:16, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Uforce

Uforce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A very new company created by a suspicious account in a single click. Possible COI. The sources are seed funding press releases and minor mentions. The article is also reads promotional with product and management personnel list. Rht bd (talk) 13:49, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Business, Companies, and Ukraine. Rht bd (talk) 13:49, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Scallywag bunker

Scallywag bunker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article is a WP:RFORK of Auxiliary Units. Other than the very short lead, all of the content matches the first three paragraphs of the Operational Patrols section of that page, which had been present for years when a now-blocked user created the article in 2023.

There are 50 links to the page, largely due to it being added to Template:Man-made and man-related subterranea by its creator one week after being created. Nivlac, 1st Viscountess Nivlac (talk) 08:31, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Military-related AfD discussions. Nivlac, 1st Viscountess Nivlac (talk) 08:31, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:10, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Repatriation of Japanese from South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands

Repatriation of Japanese from South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose redirecting the recently created Repatriation of Japanese from South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands to Japanese evacuation of Karafuto and the Kuril Islands because their scopes/topics are the same. There is nothing suitable to merge because the Repatriation of Japanese from South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands article is an unattributed machine translation of the Russian Wikipedia article. Yue🌙 (talk) 08:34, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Politics, Japan, and Russia. Yue🌙 (talk) 08:34, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
• Evacuation (during the war, performed by the Japanese government because of invasion) and repatriation (following the war, facilitated by other governments, due to occupation or in this case takeover) are fundamentally different topics. Of course if this is a bad machine translation then a different page would be better, but the topic is notable and separate. For example is an article on repatriation that shows how important the timing is. ~2026-46507-60 (talk) 08:57, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Excuse me, but these are two separate articles. The first concens the actual evacuation of the japanese population from territories that were still Japanese at that time of the Soviet offensive. The second article involves the ongoing process that took place after the end of WWII, carried out by Soviet authorities on territory that wa by them Soviet. These are distinct issues. Modun (talk) 09:14, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Then I change my proposal to Stubify or Delete because it is an unreviewed, unattributed machine translation from the Russian Wikipedia. The punctuation after the citation instead of before from the Russian article is still left in some places. Yue🌙 (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

The article was reviewed by user Santa Saana about a month ago. Modun (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

By "reviewed" I mean someone with English-Russian fluency looked over the article and made appropriate adjustments, per Wikipedia:Translation, and then made a proper attribution, which nobody has done. I do not mean somebody with the ability to clicked the button that says "Mark as reviewed" or "Mark as patrolled".

Aside from citation mistakes, other formatting mistakes and improper translations were also left in the initial and current revisions. Some examples:

• "The repatriation of Japanese from Southern Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands was the repatriation of the Japanese, Ainu, and, to some extent, Korean population ..."
• "In June and July 1949, all Japanese citizens were deported from Sakhalin Oblast, except those who submitted written statements expressing their unwillingness to leave. After the repatriation of the majority of willing Japanese citizens was completed by June 10, 1949 ..."
• Using "DPRK" and "North Korean" inconsistently when the Russian article only uses "КНДР". I put the Russian article through Google Translate (which uses AI to aid translations now and is riddled with errors) and it gives a near exact copy of the article's first revision, including this discrepancy. The article was obviously machine translated without review and attribution.

The sensible move here would be to stubify or dratify, but the current revision is so far from an acceptable revision because it's an unreviewed machine translation. The article should be written from scratch. Yue🌙 (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

The original article actually refers to "North Koreans" and the state "DPRK." This isn't critical, considering that these concepts are synonymous.

As for "all Japanese citizens by 1949," this refers to the first stage of the repatriation of the Japanese population from the Sakhalin Oblast. However, even after this, a small portion of the population remained in the USSR for various reasons and was included in the second stage of repatriation. The repatriation took place in several stages.

Another incident occurred with the Korean population of Sakhalin. Postwar Japan refused to accept Koreans from Sakhalin because it did not consider them its citizens. The term "DPRK" is used to refer to the state, while the adjective "North Korean" is derived from the word "state."

Please do not confuse the term "as applied to Japanese citizens proper" with the entire population of the former Karafuto, whom Japan subsequently, for some reason, did not consider all of them to be Japanese citizens, and who were no longer eligible for repatriation. Modun (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

My point is that the quoted text shows you lazily (unreviewed, unattributed) machine translated from the Russian Wikipedia, which is against policy, not that I don't understand the quoted text. Yue🌙 (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose redirect: The proposed redirect does not make sense because these two separate article topics with different content. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep The topics are distinct and this one is notable. The creator apparently knows Russian, so we should assume that the translation is reasonably accurate. Regarding the issues brought up above, they just reflect the sources: the first reference is titled "Problems of the post war repatriation of Japanese and Korean population of Sakhalin" and the June-July one says that repatriation of the last Japanese was completed in June, but in the next paragraphs it describes repatriation in July I guess what was meant is that the order was issued in June, but the actual repatriation was fully completed in July, but again, the contradiction is lifted from the source. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:49, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Egon Aghta

Egon Aghta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Essentially WP:TRIVIA and fails BASIC/GNG. The previous AfD argument cited WP:SOLDIER which is not convincing. The Oak award after 1940 is not prestigious. BEFORE result does not yield new sources. ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Germany. ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of History-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - for lack of significant coverage. We are not the History Channel. Bearian (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since this has been at AfD before I am not going to soft delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Chief Engineer (Gibraltar)

Chief Engineer (Gibraltar) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article is based solely on sources from the 19th century and other wikipedia articles. As it stands, it does not pass WP:GNG and a list that stops in 1800 is not likely to be of use to our readers. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Engineering. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:19, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 20:54, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment (I deprodded it) At worst this should be a redirect to Fortifications of Gibraltar or better Fortifications of Gibraltar#British period. I'm not sure whether it meets WP:NLIST but the presence of entries with wikipedia articles suggests maybe. I'm not that concerned about the use of 19th century sources for this since it is mostly a list of names and dates contemporary to the authors time. Rolluik (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect per the above comment Ib think redirecting to Fortifications of Gibraltar makes the most sense. Agnieszka653 (talk) 03:39, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Makan Nasiri

Makan Nasiri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

1brianm7 at WT:DYK does not see how this article meets WP:BIO1E. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:52, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Iran. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:52, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to 2026 Minab school attack. Clear case of BIO1E. There is no evidence he was notable prior to or for any reason other than his tragic death. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
• keep and Snowball: As per WP:BIO1E, separate coverage can become justified when an individual's role in a significant event grows larger. That seems applicable here: For instance, Makan was the subject of a dedicated Al Jazeera article as the only child from the Minab school whose remains had not been recovered, and received further coverage just days ago when his family met the Hiroshima mayor; the report says the visit also received coverage from NHK, Asahi and TBS. WP:VICTIM is also directly relevant, as it calls for persistent coverage of a historic event that gives significant attention to the individual's role. This is therefore more than an incidental mention of a victim in coverage of the Minab school attack. Early closure is suggested to the ongoing DYK nomination. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:53, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  Bold move for the first "keep" vote to ask for WP:SNOW keep. This was a low-profile person before the attack and while he has received coverage, that's standard in a BIO1E situation. What we would need to keep it is a high level of in-depth coverage sustained over a long period, which is not yet in evidence for an attack that took place this calendar year. Redirecting to the school attack page preserves the history in case he becomes notable on a standalone basis in the future. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  This comment reads more like an additional threshold is being imposed on WP:BIO1E; Actually, "we need a high level of in-depth coverage sustained over a long period" is not actually a requirement of WP:BIO1E. As I explained, it says that when coverage of an individual and their role in a significant event grows larger, a separate article may become justified. It also specifically says that where an event is highly significant and the individual's role is large (which is the case here), a separate article is generally appropriate. There is no minimum number of months, fixed "cooling-off period", or requirement that coverage continue for some arbitrarily long period. The persistence of coverage is already evident. Al Jazeera devoted an entire article to Makan as the only child whose remains had not been recovered. The Los Angeles Times subsequently returned to his story, and he was still being reported on in July as searches for his remains continued. In August, his family received further coverage in Japan, including by TV Asahi and Mainichi, following their meeting with the Hiroshima mayor. The "low-profile individual" argument also appears to rely on WP:BLP1E, which specifically concerns living people. Moreover, as I stated in my pervious comment, WP:VICTIM focuses on the the individual's role. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:44, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

  I don't see how the reporting on his family contributes anything to his notability. Whatever David Hogg does doesn't make his murdered classmates more notable. It could contribute to a "x x is an Iranian activist who begun activities after their child Makan Nasiri was killed in the 2026 Minab school airstrike.", but it doesn't make Makan notable. The Los Angeles Times article mentions Makan in a broader article about the airstrike. What are your WP:THREE articles, that provide significant coverage of Makan. 1brianm7 (talk) 00:24, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

  The David Hogg comparison doesn't really work. Here, the Hiroshima visit was not simply something done by Makan's parents after his death; the reporting specifically identifies them as Makan Nasiri's parents, discusses Makan and focus on the fact that his body was never recovered, and describes their purpose as bringing attention to what happened to him. We know that WP:GNG does not require every source to be exclusively about the subject, only that there be significant coverage of the subject. Also, the fact that the Los Angeles Times article is broader than the airstrike is exactly kind of independent secondary coverage required by WP:GNG. It gives Makan substantial individual attention rather than merely listing him among the victims and shows the coverage has moved beyond Makan being mentioned only as part of the Minab school attack. So, if the relevant question is whether there is significant coverage establishing Makan as a subject in his own, the answer is yes. The Al Jazeera profile, the Los Angeles Times report, Truthout, JIJI press, PBS Newshour, and the later international coverage do exactly that. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:47, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - plenty of notability and not a BIO1E problem because, as BIO1E states, "if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified" - and as shown by Mhhossein, this is present. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep, it seems like there are two events at play. The first is his death, and the second is the disappearance of his remains. Merging to the Minab article will make that too large. Country articles get around 8000-9000. See China or Portugal. Such small events should then stay around 6000. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  How can this be described as two events? He died in an attack that was such that it obliterated his remains beyond recovery. His death and disappearance are the same event, and as someone non-notable prior to the event his death should be covered in the broader article on the attack. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:48, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect - I just do not see the argument that, because this child's remains were the only not found in an air strike that killed 120 children, he is notable. He was a perfectly ordinary child that was killed alongside 119 other children. His remains were searched for alongside those of the other 119 children, and they were not found. Of the content that could be added to the other article, Personal life and Background are a wash. In Disappearance and search, the most that could be added is "Makan Nasiri is the only child killed whose remains have not been found. Extensive searches and forensic examinations were conducted, with the only confirmed trace being one of his shoes." For Legacy, the most that could be added (until the film possibly materializes), is "Makan Nasiri, one of the children killed, has become a symbol of civilian suffering in the conflict and the Iranian delegation to the Youth Olympic Games was named for him". That is all. The only reliable sources in the article focused exclusively on Makan is the Al Jazeera article and possibly Entekhab. (Unless we consider ABNA24 reliable, which was founded by Ali Khamenei, and whose only vaguely editorial statement on their website is "Quotation of content without citing the source is permitted.", or Tehran Times). That is hardly a GNG pass, much less an amount of coverage that we should make its own article when we have one that is so closely related. 1brianm7 (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  WP:GNG calls for significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV), not exclusive coverage. The LA Times, for example gives SIGCOV to Makan Nasiri (5 paragraphs). Besides Al-Jazeera and Entekhab, other RS also give significant (sometimes exclusive) coverage to this topic: İlke Haber Ajansı looks like a regular publisher of news in Turkey, and has an exclusive report on Nasiri; there is also a quite a detailed report by Donya-e-Eqtesad, a major Persian-language newspaper in Iran. So, GNG is met.VR 08:18, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

• Redesign AirshipJungleman29 has a point. Makan did not have a notable life. He is not notable, but his death has notably been used to be iconic of the death of all the children and the death and destruction inflicted in an unwinnable war. A street is named for him and "Makan" is used as shorthand for the protests and reactions of the 100s of people affected by this tragedy. I suggest that a new article could be given a new title that describes the use of his name. It should start with his death and destruction and use of Makan as a political icon. Victuallers (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
• Move to Killing of Makan Nasiri, as the subject is not notable, but the death is. Skyshiftertalk 21:15, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

  His death occurred at the same exact moment as 155 other people? 1brianm7 (talk) 00:14, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, but there is the fact that Makan Nasiri, the only child still missing from the school bombed in Iran, which differentiates it, and this source for example is WP:GNG specifically to Makan Nasiri. Skyshiftertalk 20:17, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

  That source covers his death in the context of the 2026 Minab school attack, which is why a redirect to that parent article with appropriate inclusion of material there is best per WP:PAGEDECIDE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep and rename — The subject appears to be notable enough to retain an article, but the current title is not ideal.R.tuor (talk) 11:39, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support moving to Killing of Makan Nasiri. NavjotSR (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. None of the keep/move !votes have addressed how Nasiri is notable for anything other than a single event (his death, in which his body was apparently destroyed beyond identification) and why BIO1E does not apply. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

  I have already explained it in depth twice! challenging those arguments would be a fair disagreement, but saying it has not been addressed is a bit like marking an exam as blank after reading the first page. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:03, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

  If BIO1E applies, that's a case for keeping the article and renaming to Killing of Makan Nasiri, not deleting the article outright. We don't redirect Killing of Shani Louk or Killing of Omer Neutra to October 7 attacks, so why must we necessarily merge Killing of Makan Nasiri into Minab school attack? VR 08:23, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect with any unique info merged to the redirect article. Sorry...this is pretty clearly BIO1E. Intothatdarkness 12:29, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving this another week, but it looks like a hung jury.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to 2026 Minab school attack almost all the sources are about the attack--I don't think he has enough notability on his own for his own page. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:25, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep, and no objection to renaming to Killing of Makan Nasiri. We have plenty of articles like this. For example, Death of Daniel Suhr has not been merged into September 11 attacks. Likewise, we have Disappearance of Sneha Anne Philip, which is about a woman who may have been killed in the 9/11 attacks, but her remains were never found. The source at Makan_Nasiri#References show that WP:GNG is clearly met.VR 08:05, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

John Andrews (Medal of Honor)

John Andrews (Medal of Honor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I closed an RM recently on this article in which an editor wanted it redirected to List of Medal of Honor recipients#Korean Expedition. No opinion myself. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Military. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment: This is the RM. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:34, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect per the nom, which was my original suggestion in the RM. WP:SOLDIER has long been depreciated, and this article fails WP:BIO. Reliable sources that I've seen only discuss Andrews in the context of his Medal of Honor, e.g. in lists of recipients. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 15:50, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect per nomination. Doesn't make BIO. Khalitate (talk) 11:14, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep for consistency. Every other MOH recipient of the Korean Expedition has their own article. Why should he be any different? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:10, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Addendum. I've added context (and corrected his birth year). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• @Clarityfiend: FYI that this is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. I would not expect it to be given much weight by a closing admin. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:34, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:09, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

• There is little, if any, more information for nearly all of the other 14 Korean Expedition awardees, e.g. Frederick Franklin (his burial place), Alexander McKenzie (Medal of Honor) (nothing more than what is in his MOH citation), Charles Brown (marine) (his desertion prior to receiving the MOH). So I repeat, why is he being singled out? Either nominate the others for the same reason or leave well enough alone. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:47, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. We generally have articles on all receipients of a nation's top award for gallantry, per WP:ANYBIO #1 and consistency. No reason to single out one individual for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:13, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
  • @Necrothesp: 1) ANYBIO is a "likely to be notable" test, not a checkbox. That's why WP:BIOSPECIAL exists! 2) Re: "No reason to single out one individual for deletion" -- anyone can always nominate more as needed, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS directly undercuts that argument. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:34, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
    • Perfectly aware of all this. My comment stands. MOH recipients are notable. Pure WP:COMMONSENSE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:47, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War atrocities

Yom Kippur War atrocities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose merging to Yom Kippur War for short text, context and overlap. It has been the subject of a duplication discussion for several months (at Talk:Yom Kippur War atrocities) with low involvement, but there is a sense there that this is warranted. Klbrain (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History and Israel. Klbrain (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Egypt, and Syria. Shellwood (talk) 09:53, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Oppose The destination article is already too long and needs to be reduced, not more added to it. (Hohum ^@) 02:09, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• First choice redirect, second choice merge. Yes, Yom Kippur War is long. But the atrocities page has ~95% WP:OVERLAP of content, so we're looking at maybe a couple extraneous words. We can go through and cull language, let's not have an unneccesary WP:SPINOFF that only adds fragmentation. Longhornsg (talk) 02:40, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per Hohum. The Yom Kippur War article is already much too large, so it would make sense to condense the very similar material on this topic there rather than preserve it by merging this article in. Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• First choice redirect, second choice merge per @Longhornsg. There is a lot of OVERLAP so having two articles seems unnecessary. Khalitate (talk) 08:14, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Redirect the sources don't give me any confidence about its existence. You'd expect there to be coverage in journals by now. If there isn't, then its probably not for Wikipedia HerrHeulsuse (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose merging because this is an excellent stand-alone article that describes WP:N events from WP:RS and explains a different topic to just the Yom Kippur War. IZAK (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. There seem to be enough sources that discuss the atrocities specifically, and the main article on the war is large enough to warran a split. Cortador (talk) 10:53, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. Oppose votes do not address the WP:OVERLAP problem. The separate atrocities article recreates, near verbatim, the section on the topic from the larger article. A merge in practice does not add any real content to the main page. WP:PAGELENGTH is not an issue here, at all. Nor is WP:GNG relevant here. Longhornsg (talk) 02:41, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete I dont see why this subject needs an article given it does not meet WP:GNG. NavjotSR (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete as not notable on its own. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:08, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose No matter how weak many of the arguments for deletion are, the content here is already in the article for Yom Kippur War and will remain there regardless of the conclusion of this AfD. Though it seems that Wikipedia will be better served by keeping this standalone and allowing the parent article to be reduced in size once all non-unique material is copied here. The Yom Kippur War article is clear that This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. When this tag was added, its readable prose size was 21700 words. Consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding subheadings. Summarizing the content in the Yom Kippur War#Atrocities section and adding any non-duplicated content here fulfils that goal best. The sourcing here demonstrates that the WP:GNG standard has been met, and the reliable and verifiable sources included in the article justify the standalone status. Alansohn (talk) 10:12, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Can you describe how does the subject satisfy GNG? Accesscrawl (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

The coverage in the Sunday Times and the New York Times, as well as the other dozen sources in the article, demonstrate that the WP:GNG standard has been met for a standalone article. Alansohn (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete due to notability issues. Since it is being said that the content already exists on the main page, it must be clear that such a fork should have gained proper consensus before it was created. Raymond3023 (talk) 07:26, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep by the GNG. The analysis is right, the conclusion wrong: the OVERLAP is severe, so is PAGELENGTH at the potential target, and because the topic lends itself to spin off, merge cannot be the solution. Because of PAGELENGTH the topic should be thinned out at the parent, making this page into a proper SPINOFF. In other words, the correct solution is editorial – not procedural. gidonb (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

• If GNG has been already met, as you say, then it should be easier to establish but I am not finding any evidence for it. The article is itself not big enough to justify a standalone page. GenuineArt (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Easily met, discussed above, never refuted, and not contested by nominator or anyone else. I think the nominator and some others made good points that should not lead to a merge or redirect. The deletes here are not based on solid ground. gidonb (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BADFORK/WP:DELREASON criteria 5. This is essentially a duplicate article. Nothing here worth preserving through a merge or redirect as the content already exists at Yom Kippur War.4meter4 (talk) 01:45, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per above. I am yet to find any evidence if the topic is treated as a notable topic by reliable sources, especially history sources. GenuineArt (talk) 02:23, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merging seems to be off the table, but there is stil no consensus as to whether to delete/redirect or to keep this subarticle.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:40, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Insurgency in the Maghreb (2002–present)

Insurgency in the Maghreb (2002–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 · TWL)

I propose merging to War in the Sahel because of WP:OVERLAP, these pages cover a military conflict that has merged into one huge transnational war. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, Algeria, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, and Tunisia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:17, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per WP:OVERLAP. FaviFake (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
• Merge the other way and perhaps consider a move based on WP:COMMONNAME. Insurgency in the Maghreb (2002–present) is the older article and covers a longer time period. Also noting that both articles have the same problem of listing events instead of having written prose. Yue🌙 (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Yue, do you know any examples of what a good prose in a page like this looks like? Militant.Insurgency (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus for a merge - but what's the preferred target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:31, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

The preferred target is the War in the Sahel Militant.Insurgency (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• That's the proposed target. Yue has offered another approach, meaning that there is no consensus as to the preferred target. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. The war in the Sahel refers to the post-2011 war, whereas the Maghreb insurgency refers to the GIA-GSIM insurgency in the Maghreb between 1999 and 2011. Jebiguess (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• Merge selectively as suggested and as reasonable in these circumstances. Bearian (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. I agree with Jebiguess. These are contiguous but separate. The Maghreb insurgency was spillover from the Algerian civil war. The war in the Sahel follows from the fallout of the Libyan civil war and Tuareg nationalism. Fr8er (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The merge consensus appears to be slipping away, and there appears to be no agreement about what the proposed target is/was.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:53, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose, while accepting that they are overlapping. Both articles are long, and a merge would be awkward to do and results in article that WP:TOOLONG. The 'Maghreb' goes back to 2002, while the 'Sahel' article starts with conflicts from 2012, and they are are in overlapping, but identified geographic areas. Klbrain (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose No? The Maghreb insurgency talks(or should talk) about events related to the Maghreb. The sahel does not cover(or even touch) some nations located in the maghreb. The sahel is not the Sahara. The mere fact that both of these articles have shared info is because of the subject in hand, both of them are strongly linked in terms of belligerents. If some of you people wish to have a grandiose wiki article on the islamist insurgency in Northern Africa, you are welcome to create an article titled Insurgency in the Sahara and make it so that it briefly covers all of these events, from all the countries, without it being too long. With this, we keep the Maghreb article (that will have to be more detailed, because it is decomposing at this point, it is not WP:TOOLONG if the subjects are genuinely a lot more difficult than they may seem), and cover other areas in Northern Africa that have been left to rot on Wikipedia, like in Egypt for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demeseriecroitor (talk • contribs) 19:50, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Oppose not only is the Maghreb and Sahel geographically distinct, the War in the Sahel is widely recognized as a real, separate conflict from the broader Maghrebi Insurgency. The former was the spillover of the 2012 Tuareg revolt and the First Libyan Civil War, while the latter was from the Algerian Civil War that the former became a notable subconflict of. — Knightoftheswords 13:12, 31 August 2026 (UTC)