The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Action of 4 April 1918

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

1. Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable. This is a skirmish within an engagement. Neither primary nor secondary sources consider this material enough to be a battle in its own right. 2. This is written by an indefinitely suspended user with a history of adding essays to wikipedia. 3. It lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to meet WP:GNG. The afternoon firefight between an inideintified submarine which did not sink and three transports on April 4, 1918 is not described as a battle in its own right by reliable sources. 4. Given that this "battle" is not documented elsewhere, it is a new battle as theorised by the creator's original research. This battle honor is not recognized as such by the United States Navy. His creations have the prefix "Action of" and a suffix of the date in British English format, to emulate the manner/format in which certain battle honors of the Royal Navy were recorded from 1847 onwards. Keith H99 (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages, for the same reasons. These articles contain lots of maybes and probablys. They have a reading list at the foot of the page. They do not have inline citations. They do not explain why nations other than Great Britain would be using British English date formatting when commemorating these "notable battles".

Thanks for reading. Keith H99 (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not sure why date formatting would be a factor in article deletion, but "DMY" date formatting is not just a "British English format", but also used on all modern U.S. military articles as well. (fyi) - wolf 22:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is indicative that it is one of his fantasy POV essays. If you read about the "Action of 13th December 1814" that I have nominated for deletion, it tells a tale about how a sailor with superhuman hearing defeated a fleet of 40 British boats at night. If you read Roosevelt's history, there were seven rowboats, and the firefight took place between 1530hrs and 1930hrs. No sneaky night attack whatsoever took place. It is not a battle, is not documented as such by reliable sources, and is one user's fantasy.

If the occurrences on April 4, 1918 had indeed been documented by the likes of the US Naval History and Heritage Command as the "Action of 4 April 1918" then I would have expected to see this term in common usage, rather than being used solely by a wikipedia article created by a banned user with a history of unsourced fantasy essays. Keith H99 (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Action of 13 December 1814

Talk:Action_of_13_December_1814 Further discourse on its proposed deletion. Keith H99 (talk) 11:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All creator was indeffed for copyvio and Earwig search shows that all of these pages, other than Action of 9 April 1914 are largely copied from https://wartimememoriesproject.com/greatwar. Pages lack sources and fail WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 10:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this from his other account [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/$1LENCE_D00600D]

So, he was in violation before, it would appear. Keith H99 (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most countries other than America use "British English" date formatting! America is the unusual one here. Given America was not the only participant in these actions, there is no problem with using this format. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all (or perhaps merge all to a list -- The question of date format is not one for AFD discussions. These are minor naval engagements which would be (except 1914, which should be merged somewhere else) better included in a single list, since there is little worth saying about each. If we were to have the equivalent for WWII, we would have an article on the sinking of every one of the 100s (even 1000s) of merchant ships sunk by U-boats, which is not a viable project. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.