Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Kalanaur (1748)

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 00:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kalanaur (1748)[edit]

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

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

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]
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]
you will find many pages created by editors where title is given pertaining to the location given in source where fight presumably happened. RangersRus (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RangersRus, Only the two sources cited in the aftermath section (which has no connection with the article's scope) are reliable. Sikhs In The Eighteenth Century by Gandhi is not WP:HISTRS; both the publisher and the author are involved in religious-related areas. While the reliability of Ganda Singh is acceptable, I wouldn't cite him here due to his political involvement and stances, especially in Operation Blue Star, which are based on religious issues. Considering the article's scope falls within his area of interest, citing from him would not be appropriate imho. However, I would not object if his citation were to be reinstated again. And yeah, just because a military conflict was occurred at a place called "x", we can't call the conflict by the name "Battle of x", that lacks in the sources in this case.-Imperial ^[AFCND] 07:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know about any or what political association of historian and maybe is best for discussion with evidence on WP:RSN. Some pages on wikipedia I came across these historians are well accredited. The location, you will find many pages created by editors where title is given pertaining to the location given in source where fight presumably happened and the source does not have to explicitly say the title but any piece of information that indicates location where the fight took place is used to create the title. You should reinstate the sources as the nomination is still in progress and use WP:RSN for discussion. RangersRus (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's best not to conflate RSN with AFD as it complicates the discussion. We can carry RSN later without mixing to this session. I'll reinstate the sources, but I still disagree with using titles like "Battle of X" regardless. The source must explicitly state "Battle of X" for it to be acceptable. If articles are created with such titles, it's preferable to move them to more suitable titles or assess whether they meet GNG. Imperial ^[AFCND] 17:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The source must explicitly state "Battle of X" for it to be acceptable. If articles are created with such titles, it's preferable to move them to more suitable titles or assess whether they meet GNG." You are right here. I was giving examples of what I noticed how many page titles were made like the nomination here. But you gave a formidable tip. RangersRus (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 11 May 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.