WIKIPEDIA:WIKIPROJECT DELETION SORTING HISTORY

Shortcuts

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:

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|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

Purge page cache

watch

History

Nationalisms Across the Globe

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

There is very little to indicate that this book series is notable. While individual books and authors might be notable (as shown by reviews, citations, and scholarly coverage), there is nothing to indicate that this is notable as a "book series". This stands in contrast to for example The Cambridge History of the British Empire, which is covered by RS as a notable book series. Thenightaway ( talk) 16:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Battle of Ajmer

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

There is no such a battle named "Battle of Ajmer" in any of the WP:RS nor any Historians named a battle as "Battle of Ajmer" between Mher tribe and Ghurids. The article body talks about a conflict between Mher tribe and Ghurids, whereas the infobox describes Rajputs as the belligerents. Neither from the source of R. C Majumdar, nor from Romila Thapar, I could even find a scattered line about this event. The actual event per cited is the prelude of Battle of Kasahrada (1197). The current content could be added into this parent article (edit: it is already present the background section). Fails WP:GNG, and not found any RS calling the event by the name of "Battle of Ajmer". Imperial ^[AFCND] 05:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Geography, and India. Imperial ^[AFCND] 05:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Draftify or Very Weak Keep. The sources from Majumdar and Thapar, like ImperialAficionado I too could not verify or find on this Battle and would have opted for delete but the source from Dr Ashoka Srivastav from Department of history at University of Gorakhpur had me hanging from where the page got its attribution from. There is need for improvement on this page and some more detail that is missing or wrong about the battle, siege, and the belligerents. From Srivastav Belligerents were Mhers, many Hindu Rajas, Raja of Nagor, Raja of Nahrwala. It does not say Rajputs. More sources will help too. RangersRus ( talk) 14:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Battle of Kalanaur (1748)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, India, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 28 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

Battle of Chamkaur (1764)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, India, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:21, 28 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

Battle of Chenab

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Pakistan, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Marion Evans

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

Fails WP:GNG. Flounder fillet ( talk) 20:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, United Kingdom, and Wales. Flounder fillet ( talk) 20:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 20:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant)

AfDs for this article:

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

Redirect to List of Jeopardy! contestants#David Madden, or Delete. Case of WP:BLP1E that was previously deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant) (2nd nomination), but it was recreated. Referencing is very poor (there are no quality RS that cover the subject in any SIGOV outside of being in lists of famous winners). I tagged the article a year ago and suggested it should be redirected as IPs were constantly adding badly referenced WP:PROMO material about his other business interests, but when I WP:BOLDLY redirected it a few days ago, having not had any response to my notices, User:Robert McClenon felt it was better to send to AfD. Aszx5000 ( talk) 09:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Only seeing now that it was also at AfD a third time (that AfD wasn't logged on the Talk Page) where it was kept Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant) (3rd nomination). Having read the sourcing that was provided for the 3rd AfD, I think it was pretty weak, and a redirect, to his entry on List of Jeopardy! contestants#David Madden would be a better solution. Aszx5000 ( talk) 09:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Aszx5000 ( talk) 09:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Arts, Television, and History. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

X (automobile)

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

This car/brand does not meet WP:N. I am unable to find any other sourcing, and the given source is only a listing that says "X (France) (1908-1909)." The article went unsourced for 18 years and the text has not been expanded upon since its original creation. Even given the age of this, it does not seem to have any claim to importance or historical significance since it existed for a year at most and "little is known about the marque." StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Technology, Transportation, and France. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 22:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Convert to disambiguation page for X-branded cars The three hatnotes at the very least justify that use and we can retain this make as part of it. Nate • ( chatter) 02:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Convert. MrSchimpf's proposal seems good to me. My understanding is that the Tesla will likely be referred to more commonly as "Model X" than just "X", and as for the other two their readership counts are both below 200 per day, which to me is not sufficient to decide the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. S5A-0043^Talk 10:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Works for me. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 19:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply

History of the Jews in Mauritania

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

The vast majority of sources about Jews in the context of "Mauritania" are discussing Jews in the Roman provinces of " Mauretania," which encompass the north of present-day Morocco and Algeria, not Mauritania proper. The Jewish people don't appear to have ever had much of a presence in what is now Mauritania. There isn't much material to expand the article with, just minor controversies regarding recent antisemitic statements and sentiments in the country, which I believe shouldn't be what makes up the article. Mooonswimmer 15:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Judaism, and Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete: As per nominator. Strong delete: Fails WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:V. Not just does this page contains antisemetic, proslavery and psyeudohistoric rhetoric that is potentially harmful, it is poorly sourced with one of the sources pointing to Wikipedia as its source ( see here). Without the harmful commentary there's just nothing left for a standalone page. BlakeIsHereStudios ( talk | contributions) 15:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete poorly sourced, anti-Semetic and pro-slavery rhetoric which shouldn't even be in the article, not to mention pseudohistory. One of the sources points to Wikipedia as its source ( scroll down to the bottom). The Arabo-Berbers of present-day Mauritania in West Africa were immigrants to the that country, from what is now Morocco as per the nom's mention above. Mauritania in West Africa (or North West Africa), should not be confused with the historical province of Mauretania (Northern Africa), where the present-day country in West Africa takes its name, following the Arabo-Berber invasion and settlement in that area–several centuries later, and not in 70 CE. Delete the anti-Semetic and slavery commentary and there would be nothing left in this article, because there is nothing else that supports a stand-alone article. Article fails WP:GNG, WP:RS, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Tamsier ( talk) 18:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Kharavela's conquests and invasions

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

Copy of Draft:Kharvela's conquests and invasions (created by now-blocked User:Logical pharaoh). The article is heavily promotional, and uncritically follows the only primary source ( Hathigumpha inscription) with some added embellishing. I'd recommend WP:TNT if there was a need for a separate article from Kharavela, but there doesn't seem to be, as the topic is already treated in context at Kharavela#Biography. Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs) 13:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete: Article is built on WP:SYNTH, combining up different records of conflicts of Kharvela into a single infobox. Latest sources barely covers the area, fails WP:GNG, and synth is used.-- Imperial ^[AFCND] 15:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
delete Besides problems listed above, the tone of the text is hopelessly bad.It would be better to start from scratch with decent recent sources than merge any of this. Mangoe ( talk) 19:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete: Article is very poorly written and has major WP:NPOV issues, and in addition to the listed issues, at this point should just be blown up. Flemmish Nietzsche ( talk) 16:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete as per nomination. Grabup ( talk) 16:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Manuel París Ricaurte

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

Guy has a messy and (and coincidentally, also unsourced) wikipedia article on spanish wikipedia, which I cut. Not really enough sources to establish anything beyond the fact that this guy exists, which is, unfortunately, not enough for WP:GNG. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 04:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Colombia, and Venezuela. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment: WP:ATD can be a redirect to Ricaurte family. Curbon7 ( talk) 17:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Good one, I missed that, although that article has notability issues as well. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 20:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Woke Mind Virus

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

Feels entirely like WP:NEO. Half the usage section is just dedicated to Elon Musk (at the time of AFD nomination).

Look I understand Go woke, go broke exists, but that feels like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Is every popular iteration of a phrase invoking the ideas of wokeness going to have its own article?

According to the article, "Vanity Fair has titled whole sections of stories under the "Woke Mind Virus" label." This isn't actually a label that is selectable/catagorized/tagged like "politics", but a custom label for one article.

I do not doubt the phrase's usage in popular media and by influential people, but it is essentially the same thing as woke. I could go on, but I think this can be deleted and redirected to woke. Alternatively, this content can be merged into woke as its own section with the criticism. -- Classicwiki ( talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 01:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Journalism, News media, Philosophy, Conservatism, Discrimination, History, and Politics. Classicwiki ( talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 01:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep, since WP:NEO is cited, let us see what it says, Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, but in this case this phrase is very widely cited across an enormous variety of reliable sources. The phrase probably should also be mentioned at the woke article and other mentions should be added and included, but a page for Woke Mind Virus itself makes sense given the sources as broad and significant as they are. Iljhgtn ( talk) 02:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Iljhgtn, yes it is popular term, this is already addressed. WP:NEO also says, Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. This is not in question. I do not doubt it will be utilized in large portions of media and scholarly works. Until it is shown to be its own distinct concept, it is essentially a branch term used to criticize wokeness. There is a criticism section in woke that this neologism can direct to in my opinion. Currently, Anti-woke redirects to woke. Anti-woke is an older term than woke mind virus and used it much more media/scholarly works. WMV is just a substitute term for being against wokeness (or anti-woke). Alternatively, I think a separate article that incorporates reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term titled something along the lines of "Criticisms of woke/wokeness" or even "anti-woke" could also be appropriate, where WMV redirects to. I do not see the point of a standalone article about Woke Mind Virus. -- Classicwiki ( talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete or merge/redirect no evidence that this neologism deserves a stand-alone wikipedia article. ( t · c) buidhe 07:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep. As a neologism, there are numerous treatments in secondary sources (see Isaacson, Ali, Krugman, McKeown and Wright, etc.). Dclemens1971 ( talk) 15:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep: Passes WP:NEO and has coverage by reliable sources. BlakeIsHereStudios ( talk | contributions) 16:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Selectively merge and redirect to woke. There's no separate subject here -- it's the same "woke" pejorative discussed in that article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Weak Redirect, maybe i'm just biased because this is an inherently silly sounding phrase, but I don't see how it differentiates from the term " Woke" so a redirect there would be optimal. Samoht27 ( talk) 16:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge/redirect to Woke, it's just a slight variation of the exact same thing. Di (they-them) ( talk) 16:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment: A couple people have suggested a merge or redirect, but I would like to point out that this term "woke mind virus" actually has quite substantial coverage of its own differentiating it quite a bit from "woke" and therefore a mere mention of this term on that page seems to be inadequate. This source mentions the term as distinct but was early in coverage so does not yet mention what WMV means. This source mentions the WMV phrase in depth by itself completely independent of "woke". This source mentions the history of the term, especially as used specifically by Elon Musk since around 2021 and in reference to San Francisco and includes some of the defining language that separates and distinguishes this phrase at is popularly understood by sources, Despite his repeated use of the phrase, the precise meaning of “woke mind virus” has been difficult to pin down. Musk told Bill Maher during an interview on HBO: “I think we need to be very cautious about anything that is anti-meritocratic, and anything that … results in the suppression of free speech. Those are two aspects of the woke mind virus that I think are very dangerous.” This source speaks uniquely of the WMV by saying much about Musk's use of it from a critical perspective. This source again uses both "woke" as well as WMV and refers to them as distinct terms with their own meanings. This source predominantly focuses on just the "woke" phrase but has an important passing mention of WMV, though obviously passing mentions in general are not to carry weight towards an AfD consideration. This source covers the phrase and the Netflix mention with some detail. I believe the above, and much more can be found with fairly little work and effort actually to support an independent page for both the WMV phrase as well as woke and other phrases mentioned by other editors. Iljhgtn ( talk) 19:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

A lot of these sources are not reliable, though. ( t · c) buidhe 15:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply
This article from The Wall Street Journal leading on this subject in a very strong WP:SIGCOV manner. This article from Rolling Stone discusses the term/phrase with both Musk as well as Bill Maher's involvement and contributions. This article from fact-checking website Snopes cites the Webster dictionary definition of " woke" independent of the subsequent mention of "woke mind virus" which the article then explores in depth further on going back to its seeming origins (related to Musk at least) from 2021, The first mention of the words "woke mind virus" that we could find in Musk's feed showed up in December 2021. There is much, much, more out there on the internet as well that can be easily found. The "no evidence" claim seems to have not sufficiently considered WP:BEFORE. Iljhgtn ( talk) 19:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Western Caribbean zone

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

This reads somewhat similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Caribbean in that it fails to identify a specific, notable topic. Searching for "Western Caribbean zone" yields no useful results at all, and while the sources here are citations for specific facts, I can't find anything that discusses this as a region as a whole. Describing these historical eras seems like original research when combining what happened in some places over a long time without being able to describe their relationships to a specific region, rather than just about Central America or History of Central America with a bit of adjacent Mexico and Colombia tossed in. Reywas92^Talk 20:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Geography, and Caribbean. Reywas92^Talk 20:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:OR/ WP:SYNTH. Indeed it is very similar to the other 3 Caribbean subregion articles I nominated for deletion earlier today. It has sources, but those usually only deal with specific countries and not the purported wider region as a whole. NLeeuw ( talk) 21:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge... In response here, I initiated this article in 2010 as a way to incorporate the Afro-Carribean diaspora into Central American history. Typically as it appears to me, work focused on Central America tends to leave out the important role played, as the original contribution did, that there is a complex set of African components in the region that were always connected to the the Caribbean, hence the Western Caribbean zone.

This includes, initially, the role of African groups like the Miskitos or Miskitos Zambos, with their international connections, to English colonies in particular, and then the use the English made of them to promote their own illegal (in Spanish eyes) trade with the region.

This was followed by the large scale migration from the English speaking Caribbean in conjunction with the building of the Panama Canal, and the actions of the fruit companies in particular. These communities are connected thought their adherence (today) to the English language (though many are bi-lingual), English customs, such as the Anglican church and other lesser religious groups that have home in the English Caribbean, to include customs like playing cricket.

I am perfectly willing to accept a merger with other areas, or a renaming, but I think that deletion of its content at least along the lines established here, is unnecessary and the piece is worthy of retention as a topic in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beepsie ( talk • contribs) 21:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I think History of Central America would be a good place to include most of this then. I agree with your comments that this is an important part of history, but even if this "zone" term is sometimes used, I don't think it needs to be a separate page like this. Reywas92^Talk 00:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

There are definitely sources to support the term. I don't know why the conclusion is that there are no useful results at all - it seems to have been a British geographic term, and countries self-describe as being inside the zone. [5] SportingFlyer T· C 22:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Bradfield Abbey

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

Fails notability, the one reliable source Is the one referenced on the page which makes it clear the charter refering to the abbey having been built is probably fraudulent. I can find no other historical source that references any abbey existing in Bradfield. Tim Landy ( talk) 15:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Christianity, and England. Tim Landy ( talk) 15:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete or merge with Bradfield, Berkshire. I can't find anything on Heritage Gateway on this. There is a mention here but otherwise I can't fine anything significant. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 19:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

List of Indian Kingdoms overthrown due to Muslim conquests

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

Fancruft-esque POV article backed by author's original research and synthesis of different sources. Ratnahastin ( talk) 10:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Ratnahastin ( talk) 10:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk| contribs) 10:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep or Merge to Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent. Can't agree that this is made up by the synthesis of sources, as most of the list-type article exists similar way. As the author, I do agree that it appears in an abnormal way, and that can be overcome by copyediting. The idea of the article indeed notable.-- Imperial ^[AFCND] 10:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent per WP:ATD; that page is over 12,600 words already, so any merge would be unhelpful for page length. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 17:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Maratha-Rajput conflict (1800-1820)

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

POV fork of [6] backed entirely by self published obsolete sources. Creator was recently blocked for socking. Ratnahastin ( talk) 03:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, India, and Rajasthan. Skynxnex ( talk) 03:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete This article doesn't pass WP:GNG. I nowhere read about a topic called Maratha-Rajput conflict (1800-1820). Nothing of significance happened in 1800 or 1820 which can start or end any such conflicts. There were many conflicts in present day Rajasthan around that time like kingdoms of Marwar, Mewar, Jaipur, Scindhia, Holkar, Pindari etc all fighting with one another, Marwar-Jaipur conflicts, Holkar-Scindhia conflicts, pindari helping one kingdom abandoning them and helping other, all of these happened simultaneously, so it can not be said that Rajputs like Mewar, Marwar, Jaipur etc were fighting unitedly against United Maratha forces of Holkar, Scindhia and pindaris. I seriously think the article is more like generalization of almost a century long warfare in this period of anarchy which also had other players like Mughals and many more new entrants like Sikhs, British, and many soldiers of fortunes working under some powers and later switching sides. In my opinion this article doesn't pass notability issue. Just show some references or citations where this particular topic is mentioned separately, or even just mentioned. This article is nothing but a rubbish page made by a abusive account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4052:91F:698F:5590:CBF8:CC1B:D8BB ( talk) 18:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Italian language in Romania

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

Not really about the Italian language in Romania. It’s mostly a coatrack about Italians in Romania and about the similarities between Romanian and Italian. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, History, Italy, and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge with Italians in Romania per WP:ATD. Most of the article seems to be about Italians in Romania, with only a fraction about what the article should be about. Thus merge it and move the content actually about the the Romanian and Italian languages to a section of Italians in Romania or a section under Romanian or Italian. Flemmish Nietzsche ( talk) 22:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge per nom and per Flemmish Nietzsche. Article is not mainly of its topic and has a lot of unsourced information. I don't think the topic is notable to justify its split from Italians in Romania, it's not like the language is very present in the country. Super Ψ Dro 22:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep part of it, merge the rest. The sections on the languages should be kept. The various sections about other topics, like Italian Emigration to Romania, belong in the article for Italians in Romania. I can see an argument for merging the language sections with that article but I do think that the language elements are worthy of their own article. Lamona ( talk) 04:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment: Why is Italians in Romania a preferable redirect target over Languages of Romania? IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 13:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply

History of rugby union matches between Leicester and Leinster

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

There is no real rivalry between these two sides, with no WP:GNG coverage of the rivalry, just a collection of stats with violates WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NLIST. Similar discussions such as this and this have shown a clear consensus on these sorts of articles. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 18:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Rugby union, Ireland, and England. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 18:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

List of countries and dependencies by area in 1989

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

Non- notable article with no independent notability on it's own from the main countries and dependences by area list article. A very arbitrary article that just picks a certain moment in history. The year before the fall of communism and as it states in the first sentence "This is a list of countries by area in 1989, providing an overview of the world population before the fall of the Iron Curtain."

There could be plenty of articles about some period in time when borders and land area of nations changed. Such as the end of European colonization in Africa, Asia, or even earlier when Spain lost it's former territories in Latin America.

Also there is no source for what makes this notable on it's own and we have something based on original research. All the notes and references listed are the same or if not the same can be or are used in the original article.

I think this also falls under No stats as this is some random information at a random point in time. WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 17:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 17:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete Per nom. This seems to be just an idea somebody had, which is explicitly not what Wikipedia is for. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete This is something to look up in the 1989 edition of the World Book, not for a current-day online encyclopedia. Nate • ( chatter) 20:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment Weird that population is mentioned only in that lead sentence! —Tamfang ( talk) 20:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Falls within the existing List of sovereign states in the 1980s, and I don't think we want to expand that article series to individual years and intersect that with area. CMD ( talk) 07:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment There is also the population equivalent List of countries by population in 1989. TompaDompa ( talk) 13:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I think this could be encyclopaedic, we just need some evidence that it's not WP:OR. The year isn't arbitrary. SportingFlyer T· C 02:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete - per nom. There really is not much of a point in including lists of past states and countries by size from arbitrarily-picked years. ArkHyena ( talk) 21:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Muscovite–Ukrainian War (1658–1659)

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

No such war in literature, it was part of the Russo-Polish War (1654–1667). This article is OR Marcelus ( talk) 20:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Poland, Russia, and Ukraine. Marcelus ( talk) 20:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment. Seems to be mentioned here but the odds are this is not reliable and copied from Wikipedia. Possibly mentioned under other names in English, Polish, Ukrainian, Russian. Polish name is not mentioned, can anyone report on the queries in Russian and Ukrainian and analyze sources used in the respective articles on ru and uk wikis, if any (sources; articles exist)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 00:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep Appears notable. Sources exist e.g. this and this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep, possibly re-title. We have an article on The Ruin (Ukrainian history). This would be a sub-article. I do personally find the use of "Muscovy" and "Ukraine" in this context a tad jarring. We seem to be very inconsistent in our terminology for early modern East Slavic states. There is an open access anthology on the battle of Konotop (1659) wherein Serhii Plokhy uses "Muscovite-Cossack war". Srnec ( talk) 20:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment. Google Scholar returns 2 results for "Muscovite-Ukrainian War" and 9 results for "Ukrainian-Muscovite War", of which only 1 refers to 1658. Clearly a new title is needed in this case and this seems to fall under the Ruin and Russo-Polish War articles (which are sorely lacking details for this period). Even the Ukrainian-language sources cited use "Russian-Ukrainian war" and this looks like to have been the original title on the Ukrainian Wikipedia before it was moved. In my opinion this looks like revisionist history referring to an uprising led by Ivan Vyhovsky (a pro-Polish hetman). For example this source says: "Khmel'nitskii died in 1657, and Poland and the new Cossack leader, Vygovskii, now accepted Polish lordship over Ukraine. Vygovskii joined Poland in the resumption of war with Russia in October 1658... But in Ukraine, Cossacks of the Left Bank... rebelled against Vygovskii's pro-Polish alliance... Vygovskii fled to Poland, and Trubetskoi marched to Pereiaslavl', where he persuaded the Left Bank Cossacks to accept him as hetman in October 1659" (p. 214). I do not think it is suited for a spin-off article; I would say merge instead but most the article is unsourced. Mellk ( talk) 12:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
In a nutshell: in 1658 Vyhovsky again recognized the Cossacks' dependence on Poland; the Union of Hadziach was signed. This resumed Polish-Russian fighting interrupted earlier by a truce; Russia invaded Ukraine seeking to subjugate Vyhovsky, having some Cossacks (including Sich) behind it.

In May, the PLC again concluded a truce with Russia, but the Sejm approved the Hadziach Union, and Vyhovsky received small reinforcements from the crown army. Thus came the Battle of Konotop, which Vyhovsky won. In August, however, a Cossack uprising broke out against Vyhovsky, who was overthrown and the new Hetman Yurko Khmelnytsky subordinated himself to Moscow, supported by a large part of the Cossacks. The war continued.

As you can see, there is no war between “Ukraine” and “Moscow”, but there is an internal rivalry between the divided Cossacks, which take place in the context of the Polish-Russian war. Marcelus ( talk) 14:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I would also add that Google Scholar returns almost no results for "Russian-Ukrainian war" or "Russo-Ukrainian war" referring to 1658/1659 (if we limit the years to before the current war then almost all results refer to the Russian Civil War and a hypothetical war excluding post-2014 publications referring to the current war but slipped through). Same goes for "Muscovite-Cossack war" etc. I see a few results for Ukrainian-language sources but there needs to be a deeper look to see which ones are reliable. At the moment I see very little that supports the idea of a separate war. For example there are plenty of Ukrainian-language sources that refer to a Soviet occupation of Ukraine until 1991 but this was determined to be a fringe view. In fact we had an AfD for this (and this was also a translation of an article from the Ukrainian Wikipedia). Mellk ( talk) 15:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 23:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge Salvage what is possible from the article and merge it into the Russo-Polish War (1654–1667) page. Noorullah ( talk) 05:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Women's roles during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre

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

Although the title of the article is "Women's roles during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre", it actually only lists the deeds of four women during the Tiananmen Incident, without summarizing the role of women as a whole in the Tiananmen Incident, this article is more like talking about the experiences of these four women during the Tiananmen Incident. 日期20220626 ( talk) 05:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, Politics, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep The article is on a viable-looking topic and is well referenced, and can be improved. Nick-D ( talk) 10:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge to 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre. There are a couple of articles that talk about gender in the Tiananmen Square protests and massacre, the Feigon article cited in the artile and there is an article from Radio Free Asia on the forgotten legacy of women and the protests. I agree with the nominator about how the text does not match the title of the page, and I do not think there is sufficient information for a stand-alone page, especially as the women mentioned in the article all have a stand-alone page, so no information will be lost. -- Enos733 ( talk) 18:06, 21 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) 06:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete As per the nominator, the article is more like a compilation of the acts of some individuals rather than discussing the role of women. The article 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre is already very large hence I would oppose a merge. I think relevant information not appearing in the stand-alone articles should be copied across, for example the section on Wang Chaohua.

Golem08 ( talk) 13:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep Absolutely fascinating! Please do not merge with anything else. People can only read so much before they get bored and look for something else. Per the "1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre" navbox, there are numerous related articles. Won't hurt to leave this as is. — Maile ( talk) 01:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Holderness museums

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

Unclear what this article is even about. Mentions one small archive, without a claim to notability, shared across the 3 museums that aren't otherwise tied together. -- D'n'B- t -- 06:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, History, and United Kingdom. -- D'n'B- t -- 06:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment. This BBC reference explains the oral history project. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 06:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Interesting coincidence that the project officer's name in that link is so similar the article creator. -- D'n'B- t -- 17:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete. Its a project or scheme to record oral histories. Its not encyclopaedic. I searched and looked for sources but there's nothing I can find. Desertarun ( talk) 09:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. ✗ plicit 14:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Hierombalus

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

This article was draftified and declined at AfC, but the draftification was then reverted, per WP:DRAFTIFY 2d, so this is a procedural AfD.

References appear to be glancing mentions, but perhaps this should be merged to Yahwism? asilvering ( talk) 00:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Religion. asilvering ( talk) 00:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep It's not a brilliant article and it would have been better for it to spend more time in development, but I don't see any grounds for deletion. AfC is an optional process. Furius ( talk) 09:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep no valid reason to draft as the previously lacking references have been expanded upon. Additionally, the subject is notable enough to be credited by ancient sources as the teacher of Sanchuniation. el.ziade ( talkallam) 10:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Nom comment: I think my nomination statement has been misunderstood? I brought this to AfD because a new page patroller draftified it instead of AfDing it by mistake. AfC is indeed an optional process, but this article should not have been at AfC in the first place; it should have been AfD'd. That is why it is here. The grounds for deletion is the standard one: there is not significant coverage of this topic in multiple reliable sources. -- asilvering ( talk) 23:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Asilvering The premise for this nomination appears to be based on a misunderstanding regarding the availability of sources. The article initially had some bare references that were expanded. There are numerous reliable sources that address the topic, suggesting that the criteria for deletion based on the lack of sources is misleading. el.ziade ( talkallam) 13:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Elias Ziade Can you share which sources you believe contain significant coverage? I'm only seeing brief mentions. For example, Lokkegard says The theophoric name of Hierombalos, priest of Ίευώ, cannot be held divine. It is probably the same name as the biblical Hīrām, from which the odious name of Baal has been left out. That's all. -- asilvering ( talk) 15:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Asilvering check the article el.ziade ( talkallam) 16:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Elias Ziade I have read the article. Which sources do you believe contain significant coverage? -- asilvering ( talk) 19:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Asilvering Your concern about the expectation for "significant coverage" of a historical figure like Hierombalus is understandable, especially given the context of the Late Bronze Age./Early Iron Age It's true that for individuals from such a distant past, documented information is often limited. The survival of any records or mentions from that era is remarkable, and even minimal details can be highly valuable for historical scholarship. Considering the challenges associated with the preservation of ancient texts and the rarity of extensive records from that period, it's indeed significant that Hierombalus is known to us at all. This alone underscores his importance in historical context. Expecting extensive coverage akin to more recent historical figures may not be reasonable and could indeed lead to an underrepresentation of ancient individuals on Wikipedia. If the standard of "significant coverage" were strictly applied as suggested, many articles about ancient figures might be shelved, diminishing our understanding and representation of the past. It might be useful to revisit what qualifies as "significant coverage" in the context of ancient history and consider the value of preserving mentions of such figures, even when details are sparse. This could help ensure a more comprehensive historical record. el.ziade ( talkallam) 20:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if we can get another review of added sources. I agree that we can't have the same expectations of SIGCOV in figures of ancient history vs. contemporary figures who have news coverage and biographies written about them. I'm not sure where this discussion should happen.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 00:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep -- Well-discussed in sources easily available via GScholar. Central and Adams ( talk) 15:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep: There are some more sources discussing him here. I agree with the above points. Aintabli ( talk) 05:27, 26 April 2024 (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.

Buffer theory

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

The article does not really focus on "Buffer theory" and only mentions it once. It would probably be best if this were merged or redirected to another article. Shadow311 ( talk) 15:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shadow311 ( talk) 15:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep: Current state of the article and its content are irrelevant. I could find plenty of sources discussing the buffer theory here and here. It is important to note that since there is another buffer theory in the fields of biology and chemistry, I had to include the keyword "migration" which weeds out most of the irrelevant sources. More could be found with different search terms. I can't also think of an article for this to redirect/merge into. The most relevant option would be a topic such as human migration or international migration, which are very general, so a main article on this topic is warranted in my current opinion. Aintabli ( talk) 01:37, 18 April 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) 16:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

First Battle of Lahore (1759)

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

The sources provided on the page show no mention for a battle in "August 1759", the sources only show that Ahmad Shah even began his campaign in September 1759, reaching Lahore and then taking it in November. [7] Noorullah ( talk) 10:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk| contribs) 12:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete unless proper sourcing is found. The sourcing on Urdu wiki isn’t any help. Mccapra ( talk) 15:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete. Sigh, not another one of these. We might have to look into the others at Battle of Lahore (disambiguation), too. -- asilvering ( talk) 16:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep per WP:HEY.

"Sabaji maintained his position with great valour and strength, inflicted a crushing defeat upon Jahan Khan, who was severely wounded and lost his son in the action. Jahan Khan’s return to Peshawar in discomfiture so roused the fury of the Shah." Excerpts from New history of the Marathas vol 1. p-408
"Dattaji Sindhia progressed slowly through Malwa. He appointed Sabaji Sindhia to occupy Lahore ( March, 1759 ). The Sikhs did not check the Marathas, but co-operated with them in driving away the Afghans under Jahan Khan across the Indus. Sabaji’s forces penetrated as far as Peshawar." Excerpts from A Study Of Eighteenth Century India Vol. 1. p-342

Additional comments- Renaming the article to the Capture of Lahore or even the Maratha occupation of Lahore (per sources) would be better. Though these sources are enough for keeping this article still additional sources would be appreciated.

Sudsahab ( talk) 10:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

There doesn't even seem to be a battle at all.

Per Sarkar, it states that the Afghans had evacuated Lahore, meaning that there was no "battle" for the city in April 1758. [8] Also corroborated by Hari Ram Gupta: [9]

The Afghans returned in October 1759 and re-occupied Lahore. [10]

There's no mention of a battle in August 1759 whatsoever.

Jahan Khan's battle per this source: [11] Doesn't seem to be mentioned at Lahore at all, nor do the sources you've shown imply this, but rather is "Thereafter the invaders overran Attock, then crossed the Indus, and threatened the historic fort of Rohtas on the left bank of the Jhelum. By that time, Sabaji Patel (Schinde) reached the place with fresh troops and a large number of Sikh fighters, who had made common cause with him against the Afghan infiltrators. The Afghans were defeated by the combined forces of the Marathas and the Sikhs in a pitched battle, in which Jahan Khan lost his son and was himself also wounded."

So again, this shows this was not a battle at Lahore. Noorullah ( talk) 14:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

[12] Does not show a battle at Lahore, but mentions Jahan Khan's defeat at an undisclosed location, and only later talks about how Ahmad Shah re-occupied Lahore (presumably in his 1759 October campaign). Noorullah ( talk) 14:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

That's why I proposed renaming this article, either it should be Jahan Khan invasion of Rohtas or Battle of Rohtas. Coming to Sarkar's reliability which is questionable. Also see WP:RAJ, we can't rely on him as long as we have better sources for the notability of the Battle of Lahore (Battle of Rohtas?).

You do realise [this| https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.98175/page/n361/mode/2up] work of Hari Ram Gupta (published in 1944) is relatively older than his cited work in the article Marathas and Panipat. (published in 1961)? It would be obvious that older sources might not contain more information around this certain event, this is WP:AGE MATTERS.

In Marathas and Panipat. p-101 tells us: Jahan Khan rushed to Peshawar, captured Attock, and then advanced towards Rohtas. Sabaji sought help from the Sikhs. The united forces marched against Jahan Khan, whom they encountered on the other side of the Jehlam. In a fierce engagement the Afghan general suffered heavily. He lost his son and a large number of troops, himself receiving several wounds
[13] p-260, It also propounds: Thereafter, the invaders overran Attock, then crossed the Indus and threatened the historic fort of Rohtas on the left bank of the Jhelum. By that time, Sabaji Patel reached the place with fresh troops and a large number of the Sikh fighters, who had made a common cause with him against the Afghan infiltrators. The Afghans were defeated by the combined forces of the Marathas and the Sikhs in a pitched battle, in which Jahan Khan lost his son and was himself also wounded. Note Rohtas,Pitched battle and fierce engagement in both of the quotations.

Sudsahab ( talk) 04:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

But why have a separate article for this at all? It doesn't seem that the sources are discussing it in that way. They're describing it as part of an overall campaign. That tells me the best place for this information is somewhere like Northern Campaign of Raghunath Rao, or whichever other article might fit better. -- asilvering ( talk) 00:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I have already quoted the sources which discussed it thoroughly. And no it's not part of Northern Campaign of Raghunath Rao, not to be confused with Capture of Lahore which occurred in 1758 by Raghunath Rao. If merging is an option then I'd suggest merging it to Afghan-Maratha War. But my vote is still keep until someone gives more inputs. Sudsahab ( talk) 14:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Sudsahab, if it isn't part of Northern Campaign of Raghunath Rao, you should fix the infobox, since that's what it says. -- asilvering ( talk) 00:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Alright Sudsahab ( talk) 08:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:HEY and to allow further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk) 14:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

History Proposed deletions

History categories

for occasional archiving

Proposals

History

History Proposed deletions

History categories

Proposals

History

History Proposed deletions

History categories

Proposals

Videos

Websites

Encyclopedia

Facebook