Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Rohilla

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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 16:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Rohilla[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)

Negligible mention of the battle in the acceptable sources listed here. Most of the article appears to be written from the Gurbilas Patshahi, which is a primary source and has been explicitly deprecated by admins-[1]. The two other sources, Hari Ram Gupta and Fauja Singh's work, make only passing mention of this battle; both are short paragraphs, and are identical to one another. Tony Jacques' source is a tertiary one, with thousands of short entries related to thousands of battles spanning fom Europe to the Americas to Africa to Asia which took place over hundreds of years. It too only contains a few sentences about this battle. This event clearly does not deserve an entire Wikipedia article since it fails WP:SIGCOV-[2]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Asia, India, and Punjab. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the source by Tony Jacques? UnbiasedSN (talk) 06:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is a tertiary source which includes a very short summary of thousands of battles which took place around the world, from Europe to South Asia to North America to Africa, spanning hundreds of years. While the source could be used to bolster reliable, secondary sources with a strong focus on South Asian history, on a standalone basis, it is quite weak and only serves as a complementary, auxillary source. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One unreliable source and three reliable sources. I cannot verify Gurbilas but little search proved its primary source and sure shot unreliable but looks like the parallels from this source is focused on the belligerent names in infobox. Reliable sources have particulars with enough coverage to have this battle considered notable. RangersRus (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A source being reliable is not the be all, end all for content creation, the sources actually have to mention the event at hand in a substantive manner; a short paragraph isn't going to cut it. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain how the listed sources have "enough coverage"? How are two sources with the same identical paragraph adequate enough to make an entire Wikipedia article? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. UnbiasedSN (talk) 06:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 1 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!} 06:24, 8 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) 14:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: I updated the article, removed the OR and the content sourced from the deprecated primary source, Gurbilas Patshahi. The current state of the article is a reflection of the coverage from its sources. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 05:30, 22 March 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.