Battle of Pelusium (343 BC): There was no "battle of Pelusium" in 343 BC.  The creator copied without attribution information on second Persian conquest of Egypt from Artaxerxes III#Second Egyptian Campaign (old diff from 2015) , and apparently invented the title as an analogy to the battle of Pelusium of 525 BC (the first Persian conquest of Egypt).  Since the name is wrong and the content is already in the edit history of the original page, and the second conquest is already covered at second Achaemenid conquest of Egypt , I don't see how a merge or redirect would be useful.  The creator was blocked for copyvio and hoaxing, and of all his creations this is one of few which haven't been speedied yet.  Avilich ( talk ) 03:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC) Sentence added Avilich ( talk ) 17:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions .  Avilich ( talk ) 03:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Mccapra ( talk ) 05:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 08:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Egypt , Iran ,  and Greece .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  What you say seems reasonable, and full deletion is better to resolve, but I notice that the confusion might be more widespread then even in Wikipedia per this in the Encyclopedia Britannica, who use the title " battles of Pelusium ".  Aszx5000 ( talk ) 11:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Interesting, but only one of the entries, the one of 525, actually has "battle of Pelusium" verbatim; the 343 one merely speaks of a defeat.  According to the sources I checked, Pelusium was simply one of several fortresses (the most important, and I assume that's why the Britannica has telescoped the entire conquest to that location) that surrendered during the conquest, with no actual pitched battle fought near it.  Avilich ( talk ) 15:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  It is more often called the siege of Pelusium.  A bad title is no reason to delete.  Nor is there any reason the material belongs more to Artaxerxes III than Nectanebo II .  The battle is covered in extenso in chapter 18 of Stephen Ruzicka, Trouble in the West: Egypt and the Persian Empire, 525–332 BC .  The primary source is Diodorus.  His dating, however, is wrong.  This is noted in P. J. Rhodes, A History of the Classical Greek World, 478–323 BC .  Srnec ( talk ) 21:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This article is WP:CONTENTFORK , an especially malformed one.  If you wish to propose a split, do so on the talk page, not the AfD.  That has nothing to do with the appropriateness of this article in particular.  Avilich ( talk ) 14:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I saved you the trouble and created second Achaemenid conquest of Egypt .  I don't have Ruzicka's book, but the others I looked at have very little on the siege of Pelusium (only the extended conquest), so that doesn't seem to meet GNG.  Avilich ( talk ) 17:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  09:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Per nominator, the article seems to largely be the product of confusion.  Ifly6 ( talk ) 18:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Per nominator and Ifly6.  DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 22:40, 17 June 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete