This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Punjab. 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:
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.
You should also tag the AfD by adding ((subst:delsort|Punjab|~~~~)) 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 Punjab.
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.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Asia.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
The sources on this page almost all deal with WP:RAJ, with many of the sources (including Singh), tracing back to the Panth Prakash, which fails WP:RAJ. Some of these sources don't even state that such a thing happened, and nor do any other major sources regarding this campaign such as Hari Ram Gupta. Noorullah (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example, here's Hari Ram Gupta, who is a major historian in this region and has no recollection of such events whatsoever. [1] Singh (who relies on Prakash as stated on page 49) [2]Noorullah (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Copy and paste of previous AFD vote- Over the past year, these topic areas have been inundated with poorly written and sourced articles that paid no heed to neutrality, proper sourcing, or historical accuracy, but rather on aggrandizing their religion as much as possible. Tactics included an over reliance on primary sources and ref spamming Google books snippets or sources which only made negligible mention of topic at hand. This article is one of the many, many examples. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above, additionally, No historians calls this event by the name "Battle of Kalanaur", which makes the title is made up by WP:OR, and backed by religious texts.--Imperial[AFCND] 06:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Raj era source is if it's written by Britons or Briton diplomats and administrators or under the guidance and review of Briton administrators like Lepel Griffin, Michael MacAuliffe, Sir John Withers McQueen. Indian historians like Sarkar's sources are used because historians today depend on their secondary work. Quick overlook, this page has four reliable sources and two of them are on the battle segment that I can see from historians Gandhi and Singh. RangersRus (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the reliable sources are used in the aftermath section, while the other two in the battle rely on said primary source.
The article in general is poorly written and no historians even call this battle the "Battle of Kalanaur", which as aforementioned by Imperial, would make this entirely WP:OR. Noorullah (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely unreliable sources including over-reliance on primary sources that still fall under WP:RAJ such as Panth Prakash, also extremely exaggerated in numbers (1 million?) Noorullah (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Over the past year, these topic areas have been inundated with poorly written and sourced articles that paid no heed to neutrality, proper sourcing, or historical accuracy, but rather on aggrandizing their religion as much as possible. Tactics included an over reliance on primary sources and ref spamming Google books snippets or sources which only made negligible mention of topic at hand. This article is one of the many, many examples. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing but another article that is backed by religious texts, that too falls under WP: AGEMATTERS. Not found any RS calling this by the Name "Battle of Chamkaur"--Imperial[AFCND] 06:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Jassa_Singh_Ahluwalia#Military_campaigns. Raj era source is if it's written by Britons or Briton diplomats and administrators or under the guidance and review of Briton administrators like Lepel Griffin, Michael MacAuliffe, Sir John Withers McQueen. The page is attributed from one source and it does not attest if it was a battle. Not every minor encounter, fight or confrontation needs to have a page on it. RangersRus (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another page littered with unreliable sources. Hari Ram Gupta doesn't even say he was defeated at all (which the page misleads you by citing it did), removed if you check now on my newest revision. Noorullah (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hari Ram Gupta being the only reliable source on the page shows that the Afghans had instead routed and pursued the Sikhs. [3]Noorullah (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also had to remove numerous unreliable sources, including one of them being a near copy paste. [4]Noorullah (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely notable and fails GNG. There are several similar articles cited with religious texts with authors having no historical background--Imperial[AFCND] 06:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 5 results show up if you search "Mutta people" on Google Books. [5] They do exist, but maybe they are a small community (I don't know) and not much has been written about them. However, I found 5 results on Google books alone. I haven't checked other venues like Scholar etc. If this is a keep, maybe changing it to Mutta people.Tamsier (talk) 11:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The newspapers used now in the article for sourcing are all there is for this person; I don't see notability beyond the local level. I can't find any mention of them otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact she has been seen on multiple movies which has a wikipedia page doesn't qualify her to have a wikipedia page. This is just like the case of Lucy Grantham (2nd nomination). The subject Mehr Hassan fails WP:GNG. Her first AFD which was keep was just a two vote of keep which was still saying because she appeared in a movie. No independent reliable source, No award won or being nominated as an actress or dancer. I really don't see anything notable. --Meligirl5 (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does having just one reliable source qualifies a person of having a Wikipedia page?
Hassan started her dancing career as a stage performer in the United States.
How do we believe such statement with no reliable source.?--Meligirl5 (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NACTOR, which is clearly the applicable guideline. rspεεr (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. WP:NACTOR appears to hold here for now, although perhaps the articles for the films she starred should be reviewed for their notability. The bottom line is that long as those films are notable, she is, if barely. Stefen Towers among the rest!Gab • Gruntwerk 16:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'm familiar with a "Soft Delete" but can anyone define a "Soft Keep" for me? Do you mean "Weak Keep"? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]