Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agreement of 1916

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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement of 1916[edit]

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

No sources, other than wikipedia mirrors, appear to exist for this agreement. Either completely non-notable or a hoax regentspark (comment) 20:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as either hoax or non-notable, nothing comes up for any of my searches. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Ganga Mahasabha. Nothing notable on its own. The dates in this article are all over the place and are contradictory.--Dmol (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dmol. The primary result in Google for Agreement of 1916 refers to Sykes–Picot Agreement. Per this source, the work on the canal was done in the late 19th Century, so nothing of note happened in 1916. This website appears to be the source of this language about agreement. The content itself came from this coatrack in 2015. None of this notable nor is it properly sourced. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The whole content has an improbable feel about it. It talks about events of the 1840s and a 1905 Hindu campaign, leading to a 1916 agreement, of whose terms nothing is said. It deserves TNT. Merging to Ganga Mahasabha would not be a good idea, because that article is little more than a stub, referring to a 1905 association and a 2012 Act. Proby Cautley died in 1871 having completed the Ganges Canal in about 1854. The more I look the more it is obvious that the whole thing is unlikely to be correct. Peterkingiron (talk)@
Delete as nothing convincing for its needed solidity. SwisterTwister talk 04:17, 13 May 2016 (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.