Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajput resistance to British conquests

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput resistance to British conquests[edit]

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

This largely-unsourced article is OR/synthesis. Some people who resisted British expansion in India happened to belong to the Rajput caste. This article contains a section each on these people (who are disconnected in time, geography and objectives), bundling their deeds under the term "Rajput resistance to British conquests". In absence of any reliable sources that mention this term, this is like creating an article titled Sagittarius resistance to Nazism, piecing together content from Anton Ackermann, Bernhard Bästlein, and Eugen Bolz, because all these people happened to be born between 22 November and 21 December.

Proposed deletion was contested with the rationale that "there's an immense literature" on this topic. However, I couldn't find any sources that support the content of this article while describing the resistance as "Rajput resistance". utcursch | talk 16:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. utcursch | talk 16:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is a Rajput WP:COATRACK. We're getting better at fixing caste glorification articles but in this case the nominator is correct. There really isn't anything to fix because it should not exist for the reasons stated by utcursch. - Sitush (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. samee ^talk 17:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete While the article is presenting many historical facts the absence of references is an issue. This looks like original research and should be considered for speedy deletion under A7 & A11. --Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 05:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sitush. Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2018 (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.