Points of interest related to History on Wikipedia: Outline – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to History. 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|History|~~~~)) 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 History.

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/History/archive

Eastern European identity

Eastern European identity (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)

Similar to the Northwestern European people and Eastern European people articles that have also been deleted, this similarly written article has the same problems. Lots of WP:REFBOMBED issues where the article just references random articles with the phrase "Eastern European" in it. Also WP:SYNTH. (This is almost verbatim the rationale of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern European people, and it also applies here). NLeeuw (talk) 05:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and Europe. NLeeuw (talk) 05:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Holborn

Robert Holborn (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)

In the Gutenberg ebook A History of the Administration of the Royal Navy, he is mentioned just once, confirming that he and others "were in 1548 granted pensions on the Exchequer of fourpence a day ‘in consideration of their long and good service'". The next sentence then notes that James Baker was "the only master shipwright whose reputation outlived his generation". That's about it for Holborn; in fact, the article says very little about him specifically. Hardly enough for WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Engineering, Transportation, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sangamner

Battle of Sangamner (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 article clearly fails WP:N which refers to the military conflict as the "Battle of Sangamner," seems more like a skirmish, sack or devastation (raid?). Found only two reliable sources which talks around this event but both contradict each other.

• Shivaji his life and times.. Gives more insights and it has comprehensive coverage around this conflict and even cites Shivaji own letter describing this event as a Maratha victory:"We assembled the entire army and went in person with the army near Bijapur. Considering that the enemy was strong — and particularly the Pathan tribe is obstinate — [we thought that] such tactics should be adopted that he would become disappointed and defeated. Therefore, we decided upon imposing a pull [upon the enemy] by spreading the army in his territory. Accordingly we left Dilir Khan at a distance of three gaos, crossed the Bhima River and went on devastating the country right up to Jalnapur. We went to Jalnapur, made a halt for four days and plundered the market. A large wealth fell into [our] hands. Jalnapur is [at a distance of] four gaos from Aurangabad. Disregarding that the Prince was at that place [Aurangabad] [we] sacked the market. An immense wealth, besides gold, silver, elephants and horses was found [there].While we were marching on horseback towards the fort Pattagad with that [wealth] Ranmast Khan and Asaf Khan and Zabit Khan and five or seven such officers with eight or ten thousand troopers came in the way. We chastised them, captured horses and elephants and arrived at [fort] Patta. Then [we] sent the army again to wreak havoc in the [enemy] territory and sent Moropant, the prime minister, to capture the 27 forts of the Mughals that are in the province of Baglan and Khandesh and to capture territory and we [in person] halted at [fort] Patta."
• On the other hand Dictionary of Battles and Sieges. gives a different POV of this conflict King’s rearguard held theMughals for three days of hard fighting beforeMaratha commander Sidhoji Nimbalkar waseventually killed, along with about 2,000 of his men. The title is a fabricated one, which contradicts the criteria for creating an article about a military conflict. Note that most of the sources which mention this conflict as even a skirmish, falls under WP:RAJ. If it's notable enough then it could be merged into Deccan Wars or any other parent articles and moving/renaming the page to Battle of Jalna would be better but doesn't seem eligible for its own page with this title.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudsahab (talk • contribs) 12:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-- Not found any WP:RS mentioning "Battle of Sangamner" nor any Historians referring to it as such. Delete or merge to appropriate parent article.--Imperial^[AFCND] 12:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Babouvism

Neo-Babouvism (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)

Unless there is further sourcing/examples of Neo-Babouvism as an ideology outside of Gracchus Babeuf (and supposed 1848 neo-Jacobin revolutionaries that I will assume is true despite a notable lack of source), the ideology's page should be deleted, or atleast redirected to Gracchus Babeuf Marissa TRS (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:NEXIST; term frequently used amongst theorists (eg Balibar see p.132) and historians (eg Hobsbawn see p.25) to characterise currents in revolutionary communist politics from the 1830s (especially in France, but also Belgium). There's a three page (pp.43-45) discussion of Neo-Babouvism in Erik van Ree's Boundaries of Utopia - Imagining Communism from Plato to Stalin (Routledge:2015); one page (pp.174-175) in Sander Gilman's Yale Companion to Jewish Writing and Thought in German Culture, 1096-1996 (Yale UP:1997); Stéphanie Roza's chapter "Communist and Neo-Babouvist readings of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution" in Remembering Early Modern Revolutions England, North America, France and Haiti (Routledge:2018). This from just a few minutes in Google Books in English, in French (where the term néo-babouvisme is extremely widespread), here's just two: Gilbert Achcar, "Libéralisme et néo-babouvisme aux sources du marxisme" (Liberalism and neo-babouvism as roots of Marxism), L'Homme et la société (1999:132-133), pp. 53-80 or Alain Maillard's 352 page book from 1999 entitled: La Communauté des Egaux. Le communisme néo-babouviste dans la France des années 1840 (The Community of Equals: Neo-Babouvist Communism in 1840s France). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Goldsztajn. Srnec (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trimukhi Baavdi

Trimukhi Baavdi (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 reliable sources Sohom (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sohom (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congress Hotel (Portland, Oregon)

Congress Hotel (Portland, Oregon) (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)

Hotel does not appear to meet notability guidelines. OiYoiYoink (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Oregon. OiYoiYoink (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you think this? I quickly and easily found several sources that suggest the building is notable. The architect is notable and the article could be expanded with details about the building's design and construction, ownership and other tenants, and demolition. Not to mention, some of the building's arches were converted into a gazebo structure that's included on the city's Historic Resource Inventory. This is an obvious keep. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am glad you found some sources and enhanced the article. OiYoiYoink (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OiYoiYoink Thanks! Do you still believe the topic is not notable? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe write more than a single sentence with a single source when creating articles and you wouldn't have to sigh on your talk page so much. These nominations aren't so unnecessary if they result in the expansion that should have happened in the first place. Reywas92^Talk 20:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've said this to me ad nauseam. Call me old fashioned, but I think WP:BEFORE should be followed instead of just jumping to AfD at every opportunity. Also, I would appreciate if you would take my user talk page off your watchlist because you clearly follow me around and target my work, even when I have asked you to leave me alone many times. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Keep The sources currently in the article don't show any notability whatsoever (listicles typically don't count), it's usually easy to track that information down for notable buildings. And we definitely have lots of crufty Portland business articles on this site that we keep because of local consensus. There's a photo in the book Vanishing Portland but the caption isn't really significant coverage. I may have missed historical articles though - if I have, please ping me. SportingFlyer T·C 18:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @SportingFlyer You have! Check out this book. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My concern with that book is that it's not necessarily discriminate - it talks about a number of different hotels in Portland. I've written articles on several demolished hotels across the world now, and I always look at what newspapers of the time have said about the hotel in order to demonstrate notability. The only one we have at the moment is that it hosted a convention, which does not demonstrate notability. There should be articles about its opening and closing, especially during the period in which it was built, which will require some sort of source search. At the moment, it's sort of pieced together on the back of sugar packets. I'd be happy to change to a keep if better sourcing can be found. SportingFlyer T·C 22:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @SportingFlyer There are dozens of sources at the Oregonian archives accessible via Multnomah County Library. Thousands if you count solely passing mentions. I'll add some to the entry as I have time. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please let me know when you've added a couple, will change to keep if they're sufficiently substantial (such as the opening.) SportingFlyer T·C 23:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure thing! I added "Hotel demise - end of an era" already, but I probably won't be able to add more tonight. Other things to do! Thanks for being willing to revisit ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've changed to keep, discovered the Oregonian quoted a contemporaneous article in a discussion on its closure which clearly showed significant coverage like you would see for a notable early 20th century demolished hotel. SportingFlyer T·C 23:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Like Thank you! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Travel and tourism. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- the article now meets WP:GNG after the latest round of edits. I retract my prior delete vote. WizardGamer775 (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC) Delete- this hotel is not notable. See the sources- it's just listings. The sources do not show why it is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. See WP:MILL. WizardGamer775 (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not accurate at all. Thanks for the drive-by delete vote. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Your disagreement is duly noted. And for you to claim that it is a drive-by delete vote is highly inappropriate. WizardGamer775 (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How is this just a "listing"? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't show that it's notable. WizardGamer775 (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree to disagree. I'm going to move on. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok. WizardGamer775 (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the expansion of the page and sources occurring since the nomination. Now easily meets GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Sources added seem sufficient to keep the article now. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 01:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is it me or does it seem like a lot of Portland companies and business articles get nominated for AFDs compared to organizations in other major cities in the U.S.? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Liz: My perception is that Another Believer, who has 200+ featured and good articles and lists to their name, has a strong interest in creating articles about Portland (Oregon)–related content (among other topics), and often creates more articles than they have time and energy to fully develop. Many of those articles are so short and stubby that they attract the attention of people who, for whatever reason, do not perform a full WP:BEFORE search but instead go straight to AFD. Why they do this is not for me to explain. All of that said, some of Another Believer's article topics have failed my cursory WP:BEFORE searches, which leads me to think that there are probably some topics of questionable notability among this prolific editor's thousands of contributions, expansions, and creations. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There's also the WP:AUD prong of WP:NCORP, my sense is Portland has more local businesses with articles than probably should exist on here with sourcing only local to Portland. But this is a long closed business, and large early 20th-century hotels were often notable... SportingFlyer T·C 15:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep thanks to the excellent expansion by Another Believer, WP:HEY. Toughpigs (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the new expansion has made it into an article worth keeping, it passes WP:GNG along with the newly added sources. TheTankman (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Now it's been shown through sources that the topic is notable and passes the GNG. The nomination was made when the article consisted of a couple of sentences and a single source.[1] WP:BEFORE suggests a fairly basic Google search is sufficient. The search results generated will not be identical for everyone as the searcher's location and other factors are taken into account in the results presented, so it shouldn't be assumed that a proper BEFORE was not carried out. Rupples (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SportingFlyer, Rupples and others. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Snedeker

Jan Snedeker (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)

Fails WP:BIO notability tests. This man seems to be of interest to his descendants (because he is the earliest known person with the family name), but he has not received significant coverage in published sources and there is not indication of his being important outside the family or a very local context (the article's best assertion for his notability is that he was one of the several founders of a colonial village). The three books cited in the article are a book (probably self-published) of family history and genealogy and two books of the history of the area where he lived. Before starting this AfD, I found online copies of the two history books, identified places where his name was mentioned, and added citations to the article. I found only peripheral mentions of him. He is also covered on the genealogical site WikiTree at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Snedeker-9 in an article that has far more information and reference citations than the Wikipedia article, but nothing I see there indicates significant published coverage or demonstrates his importance to people who are not his descendants. Orlady (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Netherlands, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Reading earlier through Google Books, I saw a lot of mentions under four different names. There were one or more persons named after him but this was easy enough to separate. I agree with Orlady that the length of coverage is not a strength. The cumulative coverage, continued interest, and the fact there are no BLP concerns for this 17th-century historical figure do work in the article's favor. Also, while the descendants and other regional history buffs seem to pay attention to this figure (as already mentioned by Orlady), they do not try to make him into something he wasn't as we sometimes see. It's a healthy interest. I am leaning keep and would appreciate it if user:Ruud Buitelaar could also take a look, as Dutch and history. gidonb (talk) 05:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply. For the record, much of what you see in the current version of the article is content that I added to give the stub article a fighting chance. In the article version I found, the article claimed he was one of 3 founders of Midwout (a "fact" that was not supported by the histories cited; it appears to me that he was merely one of the three men whose names somebody remembered), and the main thrust of the article was on the meaning of the name Midwout. That's content that arguably could be moved into the article about Midwout. Orlady (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TBT, I hadn't examined the edit history, as I usually do. Just the product as is and the potential sources by NEXIST. Looking at the history, I am impressed and not surprised since I'm a longtime fan of your work around Wikipedia! gidonb (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Gidonb for inviting me to the discussion. I think @Orlady did an amazing job researching the subject. Jan Snedeker´s claim to fame is being a founder of Midwood but if history books about the New Netherlands colony hardly mention him, then it is not Wikipedia´s task to rewrite the books and insert his name. That said, I would love to see a publication about Snedeker and his life and works in New Netherlands. Until then, I support the delete vote. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Banas (1300)

Battle of Banas (1300) (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 reliable sources or historians refer to the military conflict as the "Battle of Banas," indicating that the title is an invented name. We do not invent names for military conflicts such as "Battle of X" or "Siege of X" unless they are mentioned in reliable sources WP:RS. As a result, the article fails to meet naming criteria.

Moreover, the military conflict is part of Alauddin Khalji's invasion of Chittorgarh and could potentially be merged with the Siege of Chittorgarh (1303) as a prelude. The conflict appears to be more of a skirmish than a full-fledged battle and is only briefly mentioned in scattered lines within sources, primarily as part of the Siege of Chittorgarh. Consequently, the article fails to meet the criteria of Wikipedia's general notability WP:GNG and naming standards.Imperial^[AFCND] 09:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperialAficionado the battle isn't a part of siege of chittorgarh 1303. Allauddin sent the forces to defeat Hammiradeva , and the battle took place at Banas

Khilji sultans in Rajasthan

Thus Ulugh Khan marched with an army of 80,000 to plunder and lay waste the Chthamana country. When the armies, of Islam reached the river 'Varnansa' (Banas), they found it difficult to march through the pass leading to Hammira's territory. Ulugh Khan, therefore, encamped therefor some days and burnt and destroyed the villages of its neighbhbourhood. When the misdeeds of the Muslim army were brought to Hammira, was then engaged in religious rites, for he has not yet completed this 'Muniverata.'2 That Hammira at the moment was busy in the performance of some religious rites has also been stated in the Surjana Charita. So Hammira could not personally take the field and instead sent two of his generals, Bhimasimha and Dharmasiraha, to drive away the invaders. They gained a decisive victory over the Muslim hosateBanas a and large number of the Muslim soldiers were killed inction Narook (talk) 10:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As long as there is no mention of "Battle of Banas". We can't keep it. Thanks. Imperial^[AFCND] 10:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm inclined to say delete since it seems to fail notability guidelines. But, if it can be merged with the wider war/effort/offensive that it was a part of, that would be better. If not, delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The information about the battle comes from the Hammira Mahakavya, whose historical reliability is debatable. The salvageable content is already part of Alauddin Khalji's conquest of Ranthambore#Death of Bhimasimha. utcursch | talk 14:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This source used for this battle seems unreliable if the creator could provide reliable sources this battle could be kept

WhiteReaperPM (talk) 06:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Ontala (1599)

Siege of Ontala (1599) (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)

Reasons are listed below:

• The article title, "Siege of Ontala (1599)," appears to be fabricated. There are no reliable sources mentioning either "Siege of Ontala (1599) [2]" or simply "Siege of Ontala [3]" that occurred in 1599. This name seems to be invented, as no historian refers to the military conflict by this name .
• Among all the sources cited in the article, with the exception of "Encyclopaedia Indica: Mughals and Rajputs," all other sources fall under either WP:RAJ, WP:AGEMATTERS, or WP:V. The article lacks coverage in enough reliable secondary sources, thus failing to meet the notability criteria WP:GNG. The information can be easily merged to any of the parent articles. Imperial^[AFCND] 09:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amar Singh besieged the fort of Ontala from Mughals in 1599. [1]1st

siege at Ontala , in Rajasthan , in Jahangier's time an elephant refused to push at a spiked gate , when a Rajpoot Chief placed his body between it and the gate

source 2:

2nd

Page number 15, Siege of ontala is mentioned

Source 3:

3rd

The siege of the frontier fortress of Ontala, which is about thirty kilometres east of Oodipoor, is famous in the annals of Rajasthan

It's a historical battle lol Narook (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mewar & the Mughal Emperors (1526-1707 A.D.)

Page 125- Kayum Khan, the Mughal general of Ontala was killed while resisting the Rajput attack and the fort of Ontala fell in the hands of Amar Singh's men. Narook (talk) 09:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperialAficionado aren't these sources enough? Narook (talk) 09:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperialAficionado the article should not be deleted

Amar Singh besieged the fort of Ontala from Mughals in 1599. [1]1st

siege at Ontala , in Rajasthan , in Jahangier's time an elephant refused to push at a spiked gate , when a Rajpoot Chief placed his body between it and the gate

source 2:

2nd

Page number 15, Siege of ontala is mentioned

Source 3:

3rd

The siege of the frontier fortress of Ontala, which is about thirty kilometres east of Oodipoor, is famous in the annals of Rajasthan

Source 4 : Mewar & the Mughal Emperors (1526-1707 A.D.)

Page 125- Kayum Khan, the Mughal general of Ontala was killed while resisting the Rajput attack and the fort of Ontala fell in the hands of Amar Singh's men

Narook (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ontala is also pronounced as Untala

The annual of the east- page 136

siege of Untala, who, descending calmly from his elephant, placed his body on the spikes of the high portal, to serve as a cushion for the beast to push against...

Calcutta Review Volumes 104-105 page 8

Volumes 104-105

Rana Amara Sing , who recovered Chitor after its last capture by Akbar , and the occasion was the attack on the fortress of Untala , whose ruins still Stand between Chittor and udaipur Narook (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources are unreliable and not verifiable. The deletion discussion is not a place to make questions against me. If you could do WP:HEY. Go for it. But as long as there is no reliable sources calling it "Siege of Ontala", we can't keep this on mainspace. It's all about naming an event. Imperial^[AFCND] 10:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperialAficionado Unreliable?? Seriously? Do you think historians who've written these books are fools? Narook (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RAJ, WP:AGEMATTERS, WP:V, and WP:RS. Not evert historian is reliable. And we are definitely not making articles for each and every military conflicts here. See WP:Guide to Deletion and please do not fill the page with unnecessary messages. Imperial^[AFCND] 10:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperialAficionado it was a major decisive victory for the kingdom of Mewar, stop Mughal POV pushing Narook (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- the article shouldn't be deleted see WP:RSes. We have multiple sources about siege of ontala 1599 Narook (talk) 10:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperialAficionado before adding articles for deletion, please discuss about the article in the talk section Narook (talk) 10:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Narook, please stop WP:BLUDGEONING the AfD. Out of the 11 comments on this AfD, 9 of those are yours. Calm down and let the process happen. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete none of the sources appear to refer to the event as 'The Siege of Ontala' so we cannot have a page called The Siege of Ontala. Tennisist123 (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Well, there is the wild possibility of moving the article to a different page title that is more appropriate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If the context pass WP:GNG, we can keep by moving. Else, there is no other option. Imperial^[AFCND] 05:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Liz the Siege of ontala is also called as Siege of Untala 1 moving the page from Siege of Ontala to Siege of Untala would be a better idea Narook (talk) 06:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•Keep- @Tennisist123 @Liz @Spiderone I've quoted the sources mentioning Siege of Ontala below

Encyclopaedia Indica: Mughals and Rajputs (1999) Page 72: Siege of Ontala , the siege of which is famous for one of the most extraordinary exhibitions of Rajput courage recorded in the annals of Rajasthan . The right to lead the herole ( vanguard ) , which had for generations belonged to the Chondawats.

Glimpses of Old Bombay and Western India, with Other Papers page 315

siege at Ontala , in Rajasthan , in Jehangier's time an elephant refused to push at a spiked gate , when a Rajpoot Chief placed his body between it and the gate ,

Maharaj Shakti Singh and the Shaktawats of Boheda (2004)

During the Siege of Untala and Sacrifice of Ballu The right to lead in battle was regarded as a sign of the greatest honour among the Rajputs . This honour was traditionally enjoyed by the Chundawats in Mewar . During the reign of Maharana Amar Singh Narook (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing these, @Narook

From my perspective, 1 and 2 are not admissible. 1. We should not be using encyclopedias as proof of notability. 2. Does not describe a proper noun, it describes that a siege occured at this place. The existence of a siege is not what is under discussion but whether the acton was commonly referred to as The Siege of Ontala.

3. is great and supportive of keeping the page. However, I still do not think it is sufficient alone. Tennisist123 (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bandanwara

Battle of Bandanwara (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)

None of the reliable sources WP:RS refer to the military conflict as the "Battle of Bandanwara," nor do any historians recognize it by that name. The title is a fabricated one, which contradicts the criteria for creating an article about a military conflict. The article does not meet the notability WP:GNG, as the sources merely mention it as a military conflict, without dedicating even a single page completely to it. Moreover, there is no record of a battle called the "Battle of Bandanwara" in the specified year mentioned in the article. Imperial^[AFCND] 08:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, and suggest withdrawal. The nomination seems flawed, and fails perhaps both WP:SK #1 and #3. The OP's issue seems mainly with the name, which can be addressed elsewwhere From the History of Mewar, p.324:

On receiving intelligence of his march, the Maharana decided to intercept him on the border of Mewar. For this purpose he despatched a large army headed by the Chiefs, Chauhan Devabhan (Kothariya), Rathor Suratsingh, Sanga (Devagarh), Dodiya Hathisingh, Gangadas (Bansi), Jhala Sajja (Delawara), Rathor Jaisingh (Badnor), Samantsingh (Bambhora) etc, In an engagement held at Bandhanwara Ranabaz Khan together with his chiefs were slain and the Maharana succeeded to retain the paraganas in his possession

. These events are dated to February/March I711. So at least one historian mentions it by this name (give or take an 'h'!) and considers the date correct. Suggesting a military engagement isn't a battle of some kind seems a bit of a stretch. And frankly, suggesting that this is fabricated could be interpreted as an aspersion, as it suggests a deliberate hoax. Which is clearly not the case.

Other sources also discuss the battle in the context of military and political history (e.g. The Grenadiers, a Tradition of Valour, Mewar and the Maratha Relations, 1735-1818 A.D., Pratap, the Patriot: With a Concise History of Mewar), and even culturally (e.g. Paintings from Rajasthan in the National Gallery of Victoria etc). I'm afraid this nomination makes some curious claims, claims which are directly contradicted by reliable sources. ——Serial Number 54129 14:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Serial Number 54129. Could you please provide the source that explicitly mentions the name "Battle of Bandanwara"? It's important to note that these are only Google snippet notes, which are often available even for minor skirmishes. The battle must be thoroughly described in reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG. If the event meets the GNG as mentioned above, we could consider renaming the article or merging it with one of the parent articles. If you could develop the article so that we can submit it for review through WP:HEY, and if it meets the GNG, we can move it to the appropriate title. The current status of the article does not meet the standard requirements. Imperial^[AFCND] 16:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polish-Belarusian ethnic conflict

Polish-Belarusian ethnic conflict (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 such coverage in the literature. The article collects isolated incidents and tries to create the impression that Polish-Belarusian relations in the period 1921-1954 (where do these dates even come from?) were characterized by "ethnic conflict." Total OR. Marcelus (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Belarus and Poland. Marcelus (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and History. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite except of deleting the article it should be rewritten and goodly explain the situation, like massacres, skirmishes, and battles that took place during the conflict.Olek Novy (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What battles? There was no single Polish-Belarusian battle. The only massacre of Belarusians was the activity of Rajs unit in January-February 1946 that took lives of c. 70 people. It's well covered in 1946 pacification of villages by PAS NZW Marcelus (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There were some skirmishes. Olek Novy (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We can't close an AFD with a decision to Rewrite. First, there must be a decision to Keep the article and then interested editors can work on improving the article. But there can't be a decision (to who?) to "rewrite".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adrabaecampi

Adrabaecampi (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 refs on the page. Seems like a WP:DICDEF. The only refs I see using the word are direct quotations from Ptolemy. JMWt (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Ethnic groups. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. See the German article for what it should look like. Srnec (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of elephants in Europe

History of elephants in Europe (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)

most of the article is an indiscriminate list of historical occurrences where elephants might have been involved. ltbdl (talk) 08:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ltbdl (talk) 08:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks like a potentially valid topic. Deletion is not cleanup. Is there a reason this page must go? Srnec (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I can't see an issue. It's a valid article about recorded instances of exotic animals turning up in an area to which they're not native in pre-modern times. As long as it's sourced that's fine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  it's not sourced. did you read the article? ltbdl (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Have you looked at the sources in the subsection helpfully named "Sources"? Cortador (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. Article is decently sourced, so I don't get why the nom is claiming that it isn't. Seems fine to keep as is in my opinion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  have i gone mad? are we reading the same article? ltbdl (talk) 09:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's a topic that can be covered encyclopedically, and the quality of the prose and sourcing are WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems. The article is nowhere near WP:TNT territory. Additional sources could include Elephant Trails: A History of Animals and Cultures, Menagerie: The History of Exotic Animals in England, Animals and War: Studies of Europe and North America, and The Culture of Animals in Antiquity: A Sourcebook with Commentaries. Jfire (talk) 05:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Necrothesp. Inline citations would be a big improvement but there’s no doubt the topic is covered in RIS. Mccapra (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article needs work and especially in-line citations, but as usual, AfD isn't cleanup, and the topic itself is notable. Cortador (talk) 07:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cebrenii

Cebrenii (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)

fails general notability guideline. ltbdl (talk) 08:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ltbdl (talk) 08:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Also called Kebrenioi. And you have to search "Cebrenian(s)" as well. Enough independent mentions and mentions in RS to merit a short article. Srnec (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  After some looking, this could be merged with Cebrene or Cebrenia. We have three articles are closely related topics. Srnec (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arrival of the First Africans in English America

Arrival of the First Africans in English America (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)

Not yet notable: WP:NFILM. No coverage found online in reliable sources, apart from this passing mention in The Virginian-Pilot. None of the awards listed are notable, though a few of them have names quite similar to notable awards. Editors searching for sources please note that the website uses both this title and Arrival of the First Documented Africans in English America (emphasis mine); IMDB uses the latter title. Wikishovel (talk) 11:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, History, and Virginia. Wikishovel (talk) 11:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom who have it best in analysing some articles like this. Looking at this for the umpteenth times, I was thinking where all these sources came from (though not GNG), but WP:BEFORE gave nothing except writings dating in 2019 whereas the film here is dated 2023. Will toil ground before WP:NFILM! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed coat of arms of North Macedonia

Proposed coat of arms of North Macedonia (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)

Originally researched article (for the most part) and completely redundant since the same information is already covered in National emblem of North Macedonia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and North Macedonia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is an unnecessary article. Jingiby (talk) 05:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I note that most of the titles of this article in the other wikis translate to "Macedonian lion". If the Macedonian lion is notable enough, it can have its own standalone article with that title. It is a rather prominent symbol for some ethnic Macedonian orgs (such as VMRO-DPMNE). I otherwise agree that the potential for the lion to become the national emblem can just be covered in the National Emblem article. --Local hero ^talk 15:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't appear to be notable for its own standalone article. Otherwise there's already content about it on National symbols of North Macedonia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The lion used by DPMNE is solely an imitation of the symbols of the original organization from the end of the 19th century - BMARC, which borrowed the Bulgarian lion from the Bulgarian revolutionary traditions, that have nothing to do with any Macedonian lion. Jingiby (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian-Hungarian War (1387-1390)

Bosnian-Hungarian War (1387-1390) (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)

Reviewed during NPP. There's nothing in the one on line source given that confirms that this even exists and I could not find anything in a search. I looked several places on the history of Dalmatia and none of the mentions it. Creator appears to not be present in Wikipedia. Either way not much to lose, the contents of this stub pretty much is already at a table at List of wars involving Bosnia and Herzegovina which I put a CN tag on. North8000 (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Hungary. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I remember there's been a few of these kinds of 'war' articles created with very little documentation... I searched online for rat bosna ugarska 1387 -wiki, and found no clear reference to a war, but rather e.g. this 2011 paper which uses the terms sukob (conflict) but not these specific years, and describes the context of Sigismund pretensions to Bosnian crown, with all the various noblemen in a nuanced set of relationships, and different historians characterizing these differently. WP:TNT probably applies here. --Joy (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The lead of the GA Tvrtko I of Bosnia says After bitter fighting, from 1385 to 1390, Tvrtko succeeded in conquering large parts of Slavonia, Dalmatia, and Croatia proper. The article has much more. As of now, the one line stub is inferior to the Trvtko I article, but you cannot generally treat conflicts in an article devoted to one side. So I think the article should probably stay. Srnec (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, now that you mention it, 1385 and 1387 are clearly different, so there's a significant problem here from the get-go; in turn, when looking for mentions of 1385 in that reportedly good article, I found little to corroborate that part of the lead, no mention of a war with Hungary other than a 1363 one, yet also a random WP:EGG link to an unrelated battle that year. --Joy (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Srnec: What do you think about the title? I don't know much about 1300's geography but I do know Hungary existed then. Is "Slavonia, Dalmatia, and Croatia proper" Hungarian? North8000 (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but the problem is that the main opponent related to the Kingdom of Hungary that Tvrtko seems to had encountered were the Dalmatian city-states (which were not terribly well integrated with their hinterland and had habitually shifted allegiances between the Eastern Roman Empire, Hungary, and Venice at the time), so it seems like it's not like there was a coherent army of Hungary and battles between them and the Bosnian army, which is what the average reader will expect from an article about a medieval war. At least we don't have this documented properly, that is. --Joy (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm not sure the events have necessarily been so clearly defined elsewhere. The timeline of this source on page xxix lumps these events into a period of military conflicts between 1385-1390 for example. Dubrovnik: A History essentially places the events as occurring during an on-going civil war in Hungary (of which we currently have no article, and that Tvrtko was simply able to use the chaotic events to break away from Hungarian control.) Placed in that light, the events might be better covered on a broader picture of that civil war. This detailed account doesn't use such clearly defined terms, and looks at the events as spanning across a longer time frame (extending back to military conflict in 1384); although I am uncertain about the reliability of the publisher. This source, like many, discuss the events in context to the Battle of Kosovo. This older source refers to the wars of 1385 and 1390; showing a separation [4]. Clearly the events being discussed here should be covered in some fashion. I don't think the article as titled matches the historicity of the published literature on those events across a wider range of sources.4meter4 (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is highly productive, but I don't think I can find consensus here. It seems the (verified) content should be merged, perhaps?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as essentially WP:OR. Calling it a definable and isolated "war" is a stretch. I would consider these events part of a bigger Hungarian Civil War as described in Dubrovnik: A History (see my comment above for ref url) which began after the death of Louis I of Hungary in 1382. Essentially his death created a power vacuum as he had no male heir which led to a great deal of political instability and bloody series of military offenses involving multiple political opponents that included several different factions across the Kingdom of Hungary. Chief among these were Mary, Queen of Hungary, Sigismund of Luxembourg, Charles III of Naples, and Tvrtko I of Bosnia. When these events began Bosnia didn't even exist, and when Tvrtko became King in 1387 it was a result of this wider civil war, and Tvrtko's success of asserting independence during that war. The succeeding military campaigns in Dalmatia were a continuation of the rebellion that created the Kingdom of Bosnia, and, according to Dubrovnik: A History, these military events led by Tvrtko were done so under the support of Charles III of Naples (and after his death Ladislaus of Naples) who benefited from them in his power stuggle against Sigismund of Luxembourg and Mary, Queen of Hungary. In other words, it's all tied up together into a bigger power conflict in a Hungarian Civil War over Hungarian succession due to opposition to a woman sitting on the throne. Some of this is covered in Kingdom of Hungary (1301–1526)#New consolidation (1382–1437). We really could use an article on the broader civil war in Hungary of which the creation of Bosnia and the succeeding military incursions into Dubrovnik are a part. That is where this content belongs.4meter4 (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what are the possible WP:ATD? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is the best option. The title itself is OR and should not remain as even a REDIRECT because there is no such thing as the "Bosnian-Hungarian War (1387-1390)". We could draftify it under a new title about the Hungarian Civil War of that era; although it would be hard to define an exact end to that event. Charles III of Naples became king but was then assassinated by agents of Mary, Queen of Hungary. Ladislaus of Naples then got involved in events. Mary was in a tenuous spot until she married Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor. Probably their marriage would be the definitive end to the conflict because it filled the power vacuum, although one could argue the war ended when Mary was restored to power after Charles III was killed. However, the Court of Naples and Tvrtko continued to test and instigate conflict even after they married... so... The sources would obviously determine the scope. It would require research and time to determine that, hence why starting an article in draft space under a new title would be the only possible ATD.4meter4 (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Haidru (1828)

Battle of Haidru (1828) (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)

Delete or redirect to Military campaigns of Hari Singh Nalwa. Out of the 5 sources on this page, only 2 are reliable; Hari Ram Gupta and Rishi Singh. The two other sources: "Journal of the United Service Institution of India" as well as "Selections from the records of the government of Punjab" are WP:RAJ era sources written in the 1800s, so under no circumstances can we use them. The last source is a Google books snapshot with no preview available either on Google books or anywhere else on the Internet. Such snapshots have been deprecated in the reliable sources noticeboard.

The coverage in both Hari Ram Gupta's and Rishi Singh's work, the extent of which are only small, singular paragraphs does not justify an entire Wikipedia article and fails Wikipedia's standards for notability-[5] Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Islam, Sikhism, and Pakistan. Skynxnex (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: if an event has 2 reliable independent sources with significant coverage that is enough to presume notability per GNG. I don't see what the issue is here. I'd also note that WP:RAJ is just an essay and that it refers to the use of certain Raj-era sources to source content on the caste system. It does not mean that all such sources are can never be used for anything.

Jtrrs0 (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Jtrrs0:, I think there's a misunderstanding, the two reliable sources (Hari Rm Gupta and Rishi Singh) do not have significant coverage, hence my nomination for deletion. Both sources only have one small, vague paragraph that provides no in-depth details about the battle.

Here is what Hari Ram Gupta says of the battle: "Having failed at Peshawar, Sayyid Ahmad planned to seize Attock fort from the Sikhs. Its possession by him would automatically clear Hazara and Peshawar from the Sikhs, and it would open the gateway for the invasion of the Panjab. Khadi Khan of Hund secretly alerted the Sikh commander of the fort, and the plan fell through. Sayyid Ahmad, in anger attacked the village Haidru, and put to the sword all the inhabitants, both Hindus and Muslims. On hearing this news Hari Singh Nalwa suddenly appeared on the scene and massacred nearly three-fourths of Khalifa's Ghazis. Sayyid Ahmad managed to escape to the west of the Indus."

Rishi Singh says: "It appears that even when he seemed successful, Syed Ahmad began losing his control over the tribal leadership. Many tribal chiefs began betraying him. For instance, at the time of taking over the fort of Attock, Khadi Khan of Hund alerted the Sikh commander, Hari Singh Nalwa, who with his 20,000 men attacked Syed Ahmad’s forces and killed three-fourths of the Khalifa’s Ghazis".

As you can see the coverage in both sources fall well short of Wikipedia's SIGCOV requirements.

The rest of the sources were published in the 1800s and are simply far too old to use. WP:RAJ is an essay, but it's essentially a de facto policy and widely accepted norm in South Asian topic areas, even outside of caste topics. You can see through the reliable sources noticeboard that WP:RAJ sources are thoroughly deprecated and disallowed on Wikipedia-[6]. @RegentsPark:, an admin involved in SA topics, could also clarify, or you could take it up with him to confirm. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tuckahoe and Cohee

Tuckahoe and Cohee (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)

both subjects already have articles? ltbdl (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is a WP:SAMETYPEFORK of Tuckahoe culture and Cohee, and reads like a WP:DICTIONARY entry. Redtree21 (talk) 09:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Completely pointless dictionary definition that could be merged with either of the articles mentioned above. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I vote to have it merged into Tuckahoe culture.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Ethnic groups, History, and Virginia. Skynxnex (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: annoyingly, this is needed for attribution for Cohee, unless an admin does a histmerge and histsplit. ^Queenof_Hearts 21:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  well, the closing admin can do that. ltbdl (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Analog-to-digital timeline

Analog-to-digital timeline (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 will eventually be an unwieldy list of all digital devices (cameras, phones, scales, light bulbs...) Sean Brunnock (talk) 12:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Sean Brunnock (talk) 12:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No valid reason given for deletion. The last invention listed at the end is from 2005. Also what is a analog or digital light bulb? Dream Focus 20:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A lightbulb whose brightness varies with current is clearly analogue. Digital? Perhaps something like this [7] Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This will be a list of thousands of digital devices. Do you think that they stopped making digital devices in 2005? — Sean Brunnock (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The article was made in January 2009, with so few edits they all fit on one history tab listing. I don't think thousands of devices will be added, nor would that make any sense at all. It list the first of each thing, not every single device there ever was. Dream Focus 22:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a confused mess of OR without anything remotely resembling a clear topic. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is a list article, and WP:LISTN states: Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. I can find no such sources that describe a timeline, as envisaged here, about everything analogue to digital. I can find evidence in specific domains, such as the evolution of music recording, but even there, the information is not generally presented as a standalone timeline without any context. I think this list is misconceived. If we consider the reader, the question is what information might they want or need to know, and how would we best provide that information? An incomplete context free list is not going to help an information need. Instead an article on this wide ranging subject should be written in prose, and may then contain relevant timelines. For instance, would Comparison of analog and digital recording benefit from a timeline? Such a timeline is typically presented as a diagram in sources, rather than as a list. Finally I am unconvinced by the argument above that the page will not become unwieldy simply because no one has edited it. Sure, the lack of interest in touching this page might mean it remains short, but it also means it is very incomplete, and what it contains is editor selected, and thus WP:OR. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• comment There are a lot of timeline articles just like this one. Category:Timelines by topic Dream Focus 01:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on TNT grounds. I do think a good timeline article could possibly be written, but this isn't it, and I'm not sure if anything could be salvaged. Currently it's just a list of digital devices. For it to be a timeline of the transition from analogue to digital, there must have been an established analogue thing before the invention of a digital equivalent. This makes perfect sense in some fields (music recordings) but it's absolute nonsense in numerical calculation because Babbage's difference engine didn't replace an analogue equivalent. Yes, there were and are analogue computing devices, but they never did the same job, they never occupied the same ecological niche, and in any case, the article doesn't mention them. Nor does it make any sense to mention the Jacquard loom as there was never an analogue loom because weaving is fundamentally a there-or-not-there process. Book-keeping was always a digital process too; accounts were never analogue. We must be careful not to confuse analogue-to-digital with manual-to-automated. The same applies to most of the stuff about player-pianos. I am prepared to strike my delete if someone is able to do a massive clean-up and reorganisation, but the list in its current form is an ill-defined mess that I feel needs a totally fresh start. Elemimele (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify It is best not to delete it but significantly modify before moving to the article space again. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Tech-history fancruft. This is like a wiki version of those old Ray Kurzweil plots of random things thrown together onto a timeline because they were all "evolutionary innovations" somehow. XOR'easter (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Michni

Battle of Michni (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)

None of the sources comply with WP:HISTRS. Rattan Singh Jaggi is a litterateur active in the Language department of his institution, with no educational background in history, and primarily specializes in the literary analysis of Sikh holy books and writing hagiographies based off them, as well as translating texts into Hindi and Punjabi. https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/gurmat-scholar-dr-jaggi-chosen-for-padma-shri-8405050/ He is also used as the inline citation for the infobox which makes an astounding claim that 100 Sikhs defeated 5000 Afghans. Bobby Singh Bansal is a self proclaimed historian, with no educational training/credentials in history nor any peer reviewed books or journals or scholarly reviews of his work; his work was also self published (Hay House). The Punjabi Kosh is a vernacular source which also seems to be a hagiography. Autar Singh Sandhu is a WP:RAJ era source as it was written in 1935 and Sohan Singh Seetal is a poet and lyricist; both sources were also deprecated by an admin involved in South Asian topics. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 06:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Autar Singh Sandhu's book was explicitly deprecated by an admin here in the reliable sources noticeboard-[8]. "As Acroterion and Springee indicated, assessment of a source's reliability should take into account a multitude of factors. For example, the Nalwa book is likely an unacceptable source because of its age (1935), publisher, and lack of academic reviews and peer-reviewed articles written by its author (at least I didn't find any on a quick search). The author holding "only" an MA would be the least of the concerns because during the 1930s the PhD degree was not as well-established as it is now and many recognized experts and academics lacked it." Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, Afghanistan, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. After relinquishing sources that are either poor or fail WP:V and in non-english language, two sources by historians Autar Singh Sandhu and Bobby Singh Bansal look OK to me where both pass WP:HISTRS. I cannot tell if Bansal is self proclaimed historian from what little quick research I found on him. Raj era is if it's written by Britons or Briton diplomats and administrators or under the guidance and review of Briton administrators. Some of these are like Lepel Griffin, Michael MacAuliffe, Sir John Withers McQueen. I found a source by Autar Singh Sandhu published in 1987 that too has coverage on this event on page 79 of book [9], General Hari Singh Nalwa: Builder of the Sikh Empire. Many other historians like Tahir Kamran, Ian Talbot, have depended on Autar Singh Sandhu's secondary works where they used his book General Hari Singh Nalwa: Builder of the Sikh Empire (New Delhi: Uppal Publishing House, 1987). Bobby Singh Bansal has too been depended upon by same historians and more like Himadri Banerjee and William Dalrymple, including academic professors of social sciences and Humanities, Anjali Roy and journalists like Anita Anand. RangersRus (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Expected as much from you. Bobby Singh Bansal by no means passes WP:HISTRS, he has zero educational background or training in history, nor does he have any peer reviewed books or journals to his name. His books were all self published. In fact, his current profession is a city councillor. This article makes it abundantly clear that the term "historian" was a self conferred title based on interests as opposed to any educational background.

  Autar Singh Sandhu did not publish any book in 1987, the Google Books link your provided is not Autar Singh Sandhu's original work, but rather a reprint by a different publisher. Google Book links are also known to be notoriously unreliable with publication dates. And it seems exceedingly unlikely that someone who wrote a book in 1935-[10], would then write another book on the same subject, 54 years later. There is hardly any information available about Autar Singh Sandhu, apart from the fact that he wrote one book in 1935 about Hari Singh Nalwa; thoroughly unreliable. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Historians like Tahir Kamran, Ian Talbot, have depended on Autar Singh Sandhu's secondary works where they used his book General Hari Singh Nalwa: Builder of the Sikh Empire (New Delhi: Uppal Publishing House, 1987). Bobby Singh Bansal has too been depended upon by same historians and more like Himadri Banerjee and William Dalrymple, including academic professors of social sciences and Humanities, Anjali Roy and journalists like Anita Anand. RangersRus (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Anjali Roy commented on Bansal's documentary, which was not related to historical claims, but rather on the Sikhs in Afghanistan who recently immigrated to the UK. Himadri Banarjee cited a newspaper column written by Bansal, not his books-[11]. You must also be aware that even if a source is used as reference in a reliable secondary source, it does not automatically make that source reliable by association, it must be judged on its own merits; Khafi Khan is cited hundreds of times in various books, but he cannot be used as a source on Wikipedia for example. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 12:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  don't know who Khafi Khan is but if not a secondary source or from 20th century and beyond then inarguably Khafi Khan would be unreliable but not the ones in discussion here. RangersRus (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You need to read WP:HISTRS carefully. "Historical scholarship is generally not: Popular works that were not reviewed, especially works by journalists, or memoirs" as well the section "What is "recent" scholarship in history?". In the case of Autar Singh Sandhu, an admin has already determined that 1935 is far too old coupled with the lack of academic reviews and scholarly works by the author. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Jadunath Sarkar sources are used that are as old and its because historians today depend on his secondary work and it is same case with Sandhu. RangersRus (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A few cites in later books is nowhere near a mitigating factor since scholarly books cite a large corpus of all sorts of work nor does it prove that historians relied on him in any substantive manner. If that was the case, entering Autar Singh Sandhu's name on the Internet would return far more in depth details and reviews of his work as is the case for Jadunath Sarkar who has an entire Britannica article dedicated to him, as opposed to one Internet archive link to a book. If you insist he is reliable; please provide at the very least one actual scholarly review of his work or at least one other book he authored outside of Hari Singh Nalwa.Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sandhu is in bibliography and notes of other historians. Maybe not wide known like Jadunath Sarkar but in wikipedia you can use scholarly works where possible and if scholarly works are unavailable, the highest quality commercial or popular works can be used. I have my vote and let's give others space to weigh in with votes too. RangersRus (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Mentions in bibliographies is not included as a factor in WP:HISTRS, things like the educational background of the author, whether the work was published by an academic/scholarly institution, and scholarly reviews of the book (regardless of whether the source is an academic or popular work) are. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Castellón

Battle of Castellón (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 refs on the page for many years. I'm not seeing a way to verify the information and it seems way beyond the point where there needs to be verified information from RS to keep the page JMWt (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Spain. JMWt (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As one might expect, there are adequately referenced articles in other language Wikipedias. These references from https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batalla_de_Castell%C3%B3_d%27Emp%C3%BAries might be helpful:
  • Minali, Guillelmo. Historia militar de Gerona, que comprende particularmente los dos sitios de 1808 y 1809 (en castellà). A. Figaró, 1840, p.59-60.
  • «1-1-1809 Sorpresa de Castellón» (en castellà). www.1808-1814.org. [Consulta: 16 agost 2011].
  • Ferrer, Raymundo. Barcelona cautiva, ó sea Diario exacto de lo ocurrido en la misma ciudad mientras la oprimieron los Franceses, esto es, desde el 13 de Febrero de 1808 hasta el 28 de Mayo de 1814 Acompañta a los principios de cada mes una Idea del estado religiosa-politico-militar de Barcelona y Cataluña (en castellà). Brusi, 1816, p. vol.3, p.94.
  • Crusafont i Sabater, Miquel. Medalles commemoratives dels Països Catalans i de la Corona catalano-aragonesa: (S. XV-XX). Institut d'Estudis Catalans, 2006, p.152. ISBN 8472838641. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok please use these refs to verify all the claims on the page and remove anything unsupported per WP:V

  I'm interested in seeing what these references actually support on the topic. JMWt (talk) 11:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: the sources @Eastmain: found cover the battle well enough.

Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135)

Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135) (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)

Fails GNG and NEVENT. Nothing found from WP:IS WP:RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Article is sourced mainly from a medieval chronicle. Other sources either fail WP:RS or are brief mentions. Nothing with SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  01:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Poland, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but ugh. The topic may be notable, but the execution is terrible from the sourcing perspective (medieval sources plus some passing mentions in modern newspaper and minor websites). That said, the article is likely essentially correct - as in, it is not a hoax, RS do confirm there was a Ruthenian raid on Poland that year that burned the town of Wiślica. Here's a good reference [12]. Here's another: [13]. It is rather unforunate that the creator was blocked rather than given a probatory sentence and tasked with verifying their low quality sources with better ones. Overall, while the current sourcing, well, sucks, the topic is likely notable. Sigh - we have dozens of articles from that editor to review, with similar quality of sourcing (ex. [[Polish raid on Kievan Rus' (1136)]). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sidenote: @TimothyBlue - how's your Polish / Russian? Are you seriously expecting to find any significant sourcing about this kind of historical event in English? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, complete OR based on the lecture of medieval chronicles. While the raid on Wiślica most likey was a historical event, the circumstances are unclear and only described by Kadłubek. I doubt if the topic is WP:NOTABLE, it seems that mention in related articles (Piotr Włostowic, Bolesław III Wrymouth etc.) should be enough. If not removed the article should be rewritten and moved to Wincenty Kadłubek tale about raid on Wiślica; because it's a tale, not historical record. Marcelus (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcelus Did you look at https://ingremium.pl/index.php/IG/article/view/292 ? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my opinion is based on this article. Marcelus (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcelus Well, IMHO that article demonstrates the topic is notable. Destruction (sack) of Wiślica is not challenged by historians AFAIK. We might consider whether the article should not be rewritten into one about that event (battle), but to delete it I think is going to far. It is not a WP:HOAX and if there is WP:OR IMHO it does not raise to the point we need to WP:TNT this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Destruction of Wiślica probably happened, but it doesn't mean the event is notable enough to deserve a separate article, unless it will be about narratives about the event. Marcelus (talk) 08:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 07:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pothohar Sultanate

Pothohar Sultanate (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 page previously used British-era texts which I removed as per the consensus for Raj-era sources. Now the page has been renamed as the "Pothohar Sultanate" which seems to be an entirely fictional title as a search on Google Scholar, JSTOR, Books etc shows that no such polity by that name has ever existed. For this reason, as the article's name is completely fictional and the article is unsourced, I propose that it be deleted. Ixudi (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources do refer to the rulers of Pothohar as Sultan. A Sultan, according to majority of the dictionaries, is the sovereign of a Sultanate or a Muslim state. Lightningblade23 (talk) 11:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced, may even be a hoax161.69.71.25 (talk) 11:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Early revisions of the article refer to it as the "Gakhar kingdom" and later "Gakhar sultanate". Where does the name "Pothohar" for the entity come from? Looking into the name of their ruler, Muqarrab Khan, I was able to find a few scholarly sources.

^[1]

^[2]

^[3]

Doing the same for Google books brings up some results as well. Also found this article, and while it probably isn't the best source it does cite more citations than are worthy looking into. ^[4]

All in all, it does seem like a state did exist here but it seems unclear to me if the polity ever even had a name or not, but at least to me "Gakhar" seems more accurate of a name than Pothohar. Pladica (talk) 02:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. An article already exists for Gakhar however so either the contents of this article should be merged into Gakhar or considering this is unsourced, deleted entirely and details of the Gakhar state added into the original article perhaps? Ixudi (talk) 12:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]