Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian Kingdoms overthrown due to Muslim conquests

List of Indian Kingdoms overthrown due to Muslim conquests[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)

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]
Keep: Sources in article and child articles show this subject has been discussed as a group meeting NLIST and it serves a navigation purpose for readers meeting WP:CLN. A merge would not improve either the content here or the target. I think this is an appropriate SUMMARYSTYLE split from Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent. If there are issues with the content, they can be cleaned up on the article talk page; any POV issues can be handled with cn and fv tags rather than afd. // Timothy :: talk 07:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally based on original research WP:OR and synthesis WP:SYNTH of different sources, which isn't allowed in wikipedia. Moreover, this is a fan page.

Based Kashmiri (talk) 09:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure trivia, xenophobic and full of WP:OR. I am sure we are not creating a List of Indian Kingdoms regained by Indians after Muslim conquests. ❯❯❯Pravega^g=9.8 10:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the mention of "Muslim" in the title triggers concern, I wouldn't object to substituting it with "Foreign." This adjustment would certainly broaden the article's scope, potentially addressing concerns about it being considered xenophobic (or the "Indian"). Never knew personal feelings are taken as a valid rise. Regarding original research, it seems that most list-type articles here follow a similar format; moreover, each entry appears to be properly cited, doesn't it?Imperial ^[AFCND] 12:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. The concept of the page is based on WP:OR. What really constitutes as "Muslim conquests"? Was religious motive really involved in all these conquests? Is it really correct to generalize that whole period as the period of "Muslim conquests"? I don't think so. Suggested title change won't address it. CharlesWain (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant but asking if the same could be applied on Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent and List of early Hindu–Muslim military conflicts in the Indian subcontinent? I've asked about such naming in the talk section of Talk:List of early Hindu–Muslim military conflicts in the Indian subcontinent, and none was interested to involve in it. Imperial ^[AFCND] 17:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Looks more like a fan page than a Wikipedia page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonharojjashi (talk • contribs)
Delete per WP:OR. A broad brush cannot be used for paintaining a very long period of history as mere "Muslim conquests" unless there are scholarly sources but they don't exist in this case. >>> Extorc.talk 11:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ImperialAficionado: the above delete votes are IDONTLIKEIT nonsense. Don't worry about this discussion, the article clearly meets WP:CLN and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, even if it needs work.
Note to closer: If you intend to close as delete, I request a courtesy Draft on behalf of @ImperialAficionado: to preserve the contributor history. If you are not willing to do this, please WP:REFUND to Imperial's userspace (or mine) after deletion.

Thanks, // Timothy :: talk 13:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on this. Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]