Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/History

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to History. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|History|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to History. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/History/archive

Purge page cache

watch

History

Shivaji's Southern Campaign

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

Extremely problematic article created by a sock. Source-text integrity is non-existent: either the cited sources do not verify the text, or they are closely paraphrased. LLMs may also have been used.

WP:TNT seems the best course of action, with a redirect to Shivaji#Conquest in southern India as a WP:ATD. (A previous WP:G5 request from ImperialAficionado was declined because of intervening edits.) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and India. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Appelbaum

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

Article about a recently deceased music engineer, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. As written, this literally just states that he existed and then died, without documenting even one thing about his career that could be measured against NMUSIC criteria at all, and for referencing it cites one primary source (the self-published website of an organization he was directly affiliated with) that isn't support for notability and one newspaper article that's a valid start toward WP:GNG but not enough all by itself. And while there's a "this article can be expanded from German" notice on it, the German article (which was also created within the past week based on his death) has more text but is still based entirely on primary and unreliable sourcing (a paid-inclusion legacy.com obituary, a directory of his contributions to a magazine where he was the author of content about other things rather than the subject of content written by other people, etc.) rather than WP:GNG-building reliable sources. So even if we did translate the other article, we'd still need to see much better sourcing anyway.
As this is a specialized subject I don't have a lot of knowledge about, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with more expertise can salvage the article with more substance about his career and better sourcing for it, but one obituary isn't enough to make him "inherently" notable just for existing. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From a quick internet search, plenty of sources appear that build a strong case for notability. Why not just tag the article for notability instead of nominating it for deletion? Thriley (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Engineering. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:26, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Obituaries in Washington Post, Downbeat, etc. AllyD (talk) 09:35, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest empires and polities on Indian subcontinent

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

Fails WP:OR and WP:CFORK. No inclusion criteria for Indian(?) empires and polities (original research). List of largest empires also has an identical topic of greater quality. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 02:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:16, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear POVFORK of List of largest empires. Orientls (talk) 10:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of largest empires: as this whole article is a fork of "List of largest empires" article with no prior discussion. NXcrypto Message 20:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, this again? I redirected the similar List of largest empires in India to List of largest empires as an inappropriate WP:CONTENTFORK a few years ago. Nothing has changed since, really. Redirect or delete; I have no strong preference between those two options. TompaDompa (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I might also add that several of the citations here are fraudulent. There are several citations to Taagepera 1997 (that article is also for some reason cited twice in separate references) for content that is not verified by that source. TompaDompa (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:POVFORK. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Polar Tempest

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

Like "Operation Purple Haze," the article cites no legitimate sources and a Google search gives no evidence for its existence. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 02:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Iraq. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 02:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As with Operation Purple Haze, subject appears to be made up. A Google search of the subject yielded nothing. Madeleine (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a hoax, just a copy of this military press release. The domain mnf-iraq.com was usurped by a spam site. Clearly not notable though. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. The article lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The only reference is from a Multi-National Force Iraq (MNF-I) website, which is a primary source and does not establish notability. The operation itself appears to be a minor raid with no long-term strategic impact and similar small-scale raids during the Iraq War have not received standalone articles. NXcrypto Message 20:16, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Purple Haze

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

The article cites no sources (except a spam site in Armenian). Searching up the topic reveals nothing, so the topic's existence, let alone notability, can not be verified. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Iraq. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject appears to be made up. A Google search of the subject yielded nothing. Madeleine (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I went through all the usual suspects (google news/books/scholar, bing, newspapers.com). I found two separate incidents known by that name [1][2] and um, well, it's safe to say neither of them have any passing similarity to the topic being discussed in this page. I also tried searching for any cache discoveries on the date in question during the Iraq War - I think possible the article is referencing this incident [3] but some of the details seem different and there is also no reference to haze of any color. Looks like a possible hoax. Zzz plant (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a hoax. The body is just a copy of a military press release, no indication of notability: [4]. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also the source that is cited, mnf-iraq.com, was the legitimate site of MNF-Iraq but it was usurped by the spam site. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conquests of Genghis Khan

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

WP:REDUNDANTFORK of multiple articles, especially Genghis Khan, which summarises all the information in this article, but also Mongol invasions and conquests and relevant subtopic articles.

This article appears to have been constructed by poorly summarising a number of other articles (probably using WP:LLMs) and then impreciely adding references, so that many do not verify the text. If anyone can figure out what's meant to be said in the first paragraph of #Siege of Bukhara, please let me know. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Asia, and Mongolia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source clearly mentions the title as Conquests of Genghis Khan Which covers all the sub topic Mentioned in the article From page number 103–1121, No this is not made through LLM it has a human score of 90% verified by GPTZero. Mr.Hanes Talk 04:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (i.e., as a fork). Srnec (talk) 04:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this redundant fork, per nom. JFHJr (㊟) 04:44, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

9202

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

Declined G3. I tagged this a hoax because there isn't any information on this topic online. WP:TOOSOON obviously applies as well. The title is also ambiguous, which prevents this from being a plausible redirect. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Given that the entire contents of this article are generated by the standard templates used for year articles, I can definitely see why this is ineligible for G3 — in and of itself, nothing about those aforementioned contents could actually be said to be inaccurate or false in any way. But it is indeed far too soon — by over 7 millenia — for there to be sufficiently enough to say about this far-off future year to merit an article (and you'd need to peer into the crystal ball — which would be contrary to policy — to suggest otherwise). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and sent to WP:DAFT. WP:TOOSOON is a massive understatement here. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above; also, it's not even wrong. Bearian (talk) 10:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving Bengal until 1971

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

A WP:POVFORK & WP:POVSPLIT of List of wars involving Bangladesh, in order to evade the WP:NLIST and anachronistic issues [5]. Possibly a sock creation as well [6]. – Garuda ^Talk! 19:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Bangladesh, China, Myanmar, Nepal, India, Assam, Bihar, Maharashtra, Odisha, Tamil Nadu, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, and United Kingdom. – Garuda ^Talk! 19:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France and Netherlands. – Garuda ^Talk! 19:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan and United States. – Garuda ^Talk! 19:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rajasthan, Jammu and Kashmir, and Karnataka. – Garuda ^Talk! 19:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There was a suggestion in the talk page of the List of wars involving Bangladesh suggesting the creation for this page. I don't see how this is a POV Fork, there is no particular point of view within this page, everything is from a neutral point of view. Thorough research was put in to include every war and battle, no defeats or victories were kept hidden as to push a certain perspective. Longsword4 (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a poor proposal by a blocked sock, which really means nothing. By POVFORK we infer: bypassing the problems of an article by creating a new one, without actually addressing the issues raised. In this case the issues are notability and anachronism. – Garuda ^Talk! 21:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment - This is not a means of bypassing anything as I did not create or partake in the creation of the original additions of the List of wars involving Bangladesh nor do I have any affiliation to it. I have been browsing Wikipedia on and off for the past few years and decided to make this account to make the List of wars involving Bengal until 1971 page. I thought that because I had prior experience editing Wikipedia from a few years ago that it would be easy, especially as this page is just a list. The issue of anachronism was flagged because of the the wars being on a page about Bangladesh and how Bangladesh is a relatively new construct. There were also no sources indicating anything about Bangladesh, all sources were pointing to Bengal as a whole. This is why, along with that person's suggestion, I decided to make the page. Now concerning anachronism and notability, I do not believe this page is another page based off of anachronism because there are books such as The History of Bengal or The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204–1760 and Land of Two Rivers: A History of Bengal from the Mahabharata to Mujib that explicitly use the term Bengal while referring to it's history and wars such as Ancient, Late and Early medieval Bengal. Longsword4 (talk) 19:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well you have bypassed the issue by POVSPLIT. The issue of anachronism was flagged because of the the wars being on a page about Bangladesh and how Bangladesh is a relatively new construct. Even so, the entries in the list already exist in List of wars involving India. We don't need a subset list for this entity. Please don't use The History of Bengal as it's close to a depreciable source. So far I have found nothing in your given other two sources that this list grouping is discussed as a set. These sources revolves around the history of Bengal not its conflicts. – Garuda ^Talk! 08:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The List of wars involving India does not even contain half of the wars in the List of wars involving Bengal until 1971 page. In fact many kingdoms like the Sena Dynasty or briefly controlled regions such as the domain of Tariqah-i-Muhammadiya and their wars are not even there or are just briefly mentioned. The sources I have provided explicitly mention Bengal alongside battles such as the Battle of Tukaroi. However here are few more sources; Baharistan-i-Ghaibi, The Battle of Plassey 1757 and History of the Organization, Equipment, And War Services of the Regiment of Bengal Artillery. Also this is isn't necessarily a subset list of List of wars involving India because Bengal encompasses Bangladesh too, not just India. Longsword4 (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, both of these sources spun around over an individual battle or period. You still haven't cited a source having classified a set for this list, and the issue of WP:POVSPLIT remains. – Garuda ^Talk! 16:57, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I used The History of Bengal but you said it's close to a depreciable source, can you elaborate please because it is a widely respected and reliable text which contains plenty of the military activities of Bengal. Within the list of wars involving Bengal I have also used sources such as Bengal Past and Present, Outline of the History of Bengal. I simply don't understand what the issue is because I have included a sufficient number of sources that classify the military expeditions of this area to the term Bengal. Longsword4 (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source falls under WP:RAJ and the historiography of R. C. Majumdar is questionable for his nationalist bias. Please establish notability for your list as a set; see WP:NLIST. – Garuda ^Talk! 17:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bengal Past and Present; Outline of the History of Bengal; Baharistan-i-Ghaibi; The Battle of Plassey 1757; History of the Organization, Equipment, And War Services of the Regiment of Bengal Artillery;The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204–1760; Land of Two Rivers: A History of Bengal from the Mahabharata to Mujib Longsword4 (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to spam out these sources, just cite one if it describes a set of conflicts as a group list. – Garuda ^Talk! 18:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of them do, however specifically Bengal Past and Present and Baharistan-i-Ghaibi and also The history of Bengal (Charles Stewart) Longsword4 (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again both of the sources fall under WP:RAJ, we aren't going through these sources. – Garuda ^Talk! 19:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources and the topic this page covers has nothing to do with the caste system (WP:RAJ) so why do you keep bringing it up? Even so, the Baharistan-i-Ghaibi does not fall under WP:RAJ, nor does the Riyaz-us-salatin, Siyar-Al-Mutakherin and Tarikhi-i-Bangalah-i-mahabat jangi. Longsword4 (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm somewhat confused by this nomination. The nominator has fought to keep wars prior to the foundation of Bangladesh off List of wars involving Bangladesh yet objects to them being in another article. I don't see how this can be a POVFORK/SPLIT as a different time period is covered. If List of wars involving Bangladesh limits itself to events since the formation of Bangladesh, then events prior to the formation being covered in another article is not unreasonable. --John B123 (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a much clearer explanation. I was not the sole to challenge those "newly added mass additions" in List of wars involving Bangladesh without consensus [7][8]. See the page's history for a quick overview. Now instead of discussing the issues on the talk page, the user has crafted this list, basically a WP:POVSPLIT. Even so, they should have WP:PROSPLIT based on general consensus, but no proper procedure was followed. Moreover, almost all of these entries are already present at List of wars involving India, and many such attempts have been made in past to create distinct regional lists (List of wars involving Gujarat, List of wars involving Magadha, List of wars involving Punjab & List of wars involving Karnataka), but ultimately all have been either deleted or redirected to their respective parent articles. I find no reason to retain this poorly crafted list, it's not like they have cited any source that group the entries as a set, to even think about keeping this problematic page. – Garuda ^Talk! 09:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Refactoring your POV in a condescending tone does nothing to strengthen your case. --John B123 (talk) 09:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think so? My reply is far from "condescending". – Garuda ^Talk! 09:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find starting with Let me make it more clear for you extremely condescending, just a more polite way of saying as you're too stupid to work it out for yourself I'll explain. Looking at Talk:List of wars involving Bangladesh, I see a lot of support for including wars before the formation of Bangladesh in the article and also a lot of opposition, so this isn't a clear cut case. If List of wars involving Bangladesh is limited to events since the formation of Bangladesh, then prior events cannot be a WP:SPLIT let alone a WP:POVSPLIT, nor do they require a WP:PROSPLIT. With regard to List of wars involving Gujarat etc, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Poorly crafted? I don't see the crafting of List of wars involving Bengal until 1971 any better or any worse than List of wars involving Bangladesh. However this is all irrelevant, we are here to discuss whether the article should exist not the state of the article or how/why it was created. John B123 (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aight, re-worded. Although I had no intention to spill it out as you're too stupid to work it out for yourself I'll explain to offend you. The supports and proposals you see at Talk:List of wars involving Bangladesh are made by bunch of blocked socks, where they barely addressed the issues. I'm well aware of WP:OCON, I have given the instances of such redirected lists to indirectly thought out that it'd be WP:SNOW to discuss all of this again, but maybe another prolonged discussion wouldn't hurt. – Garuda ^Talk! 15:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In October 2023 there was a move discussion List of wars involving Bangladesh → List of wars involving Bengal. At this time the article included wars from the time of the Pala Empire to present day. On 25 January 2025 you removed all entries prior to the formation of Bangladesh. This was subsequently reverted and an editwar ensued. Per WP:BRD this should have been discussed on the talk page not editwarred to keep your edit. Having changed List of wars involving Bangladesh to only include wars since the country's formation, I'm at a loss to understand why you object to an article that lists wars in the area now occupied by Bangladesh prior to its formation. --John B123 (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@John B123 I do not disagree with you however I still believe the article should be deleted for other reasons, please see my comment. Koshuri ^(グ) 10:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A mess of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:MADEUP. This List contains made-up & fabricated names of supposed conflicts & wars, Some of these conflicts never actually happened. Most part of the article was originally added by the blocked users User:Tiipu & User:JingJongPascal in List of wars involving Bangladesh who has also created many other List of wars involving xyz articles. This article has the same case as other articles created by JingJongPascal, There was a discussion in WP:NORN about it, see [9]. Koshuri ^(グ) 10:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please kindly name some of these conflicts "that never happened" because as far as I am aware every conflict that doesn't have a Wikipedia redirect, has a citation. Yes, some of these were originally added by other users but they were referenced correctly. Additionally, I personally added more than half of what is on that page so their contributions are not important to whether this page should or should not be deleted. Longsword4 (talk) 10:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1st Gauda-Maukhari War(c. 600- c. 605) from #Gauda Kingdom, The cited source says that it was a conflict between Maukharis and Malwa, Gauda Kingdom wasn't even involved here.
Hans Bakker (2014). The World of the Skandapurāṇa, pg 81
Instability increased, however, when not much later Prabhākara-vardhana died and Thanesar became, like Kanauj, prey to succession troubles. Immediately after the death of Prabhakaravardhana, if we are allowed to believe the author of the Harşacarita, the fragile peace with Malwa was broken. The king of Malava attacked Kanauj, captured Harşa's sister Rājyaśrī and killed his brother-in-law, the Maukhari king Grahavarman.
Koshuri ^(グ) 11:27, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hans Bakker (2014). The World of the Skandapurāṇa, pg 91 (Second confrontation) "Gauda army that casued the downfall of the Maukharis and temporarily occupied Kannauj"

Hans Bakker (2014). The World of the Skandapurāṇa, pg 86 (First Confrontation) "According to the Harsacarita, the victorious Rajyavardhana was lured into a trap set for him by the King of Gauda... he was treacherously murdered" I believe these sources indicate the a war not multiple wars. This looks like an error on my behalf. If you see the page's history originally I grouped it as one conflict however for some reason I split them into two separate conflicts.

Longsword4 (talk) 11:44, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some of these were originally added by other users but they were referenced correctly. No, They are not referenced correctly and that's not how Wikipedia, It violates WP:OR. Koshuri ^(グ) 11:32, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone back and corrected many of these, specifically the Pala Empire and things like the Pala-Kannauj Wars all being grouped as the Tripartite Struggle and unsourced or unreferenced conflicts such as the Pala-Hunnic wars were completely deleted. I'm sure there are still a few more of these incorrect namings but these issues can be fixed and don't require the whole article to be deleted. Longsword4 (talk) 11:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of wars involving India: There was "no consensus" in the move discussion, so I find no reason for this article to be kept. Go to the page history and you'll find blocked socks adding and removing mass contents. NXcrypto Message 11:21, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The List of wars involving India does not have even half of the conflicts in the List of wars involving Bengal until 1971. In fact many kingdoms like the Sena Dynasty or briefly controlled regions such as the domain of Tariqah-i-Muhammadiya and their wars are not even there or are just briefly mentioned. This page has nothing to do with that move discussion because this list is unrelated to the List of wars involving Bangladesh. This list contains conflicts before 1971 and Bangladesh was formed in 1971 therefore meaning these lists are separate. Longsword4 (talk) 12:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This page has nothing to do with that move discussion because this list is unrelated to the List of wars involving Bangladesh. No, it certainly does. Start a WP:PROSPLIT discussion there, gain consensus to keep this list as a standalone article, and then come back here to improve it, as it currently lacks notability. Until then, it will be redirected, but you can later convert the redirect into an article in the future if you can establish its WP:NLIST eligibility. NXcrypto Message 16:27, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the criteria of List of wars involving Bengal was changed, without consensus, to exclude wars before the formation of Bangladesh and all information pre the formation removed, this list cannot be a split from List of wars involving Bengal. Whilst there has been a lot of additions by socks, there has also been additions by legitimate editors, so the content cannot be dismissed as sock added. --John B123 (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The People's Recorder

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

I doubt the notability of the topic. I tried to find some secondary sources but I couldn't. The only thing us that it had been nominated by an award, but I am not sure whether that award is prominent or not. Current sourcing in the article is mainly primary. ToadetteEdit (talk) 08:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, History, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Jhain

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

Fails WP:GNG, None of the sources gives enough significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) of this event/conflict to establish Notability (WP:N). Moreover the article focuses more on the background and the aftermath as the article only mentions 2-3 lines about the actual conflict. Koshuri ^(グ) 19:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, India, and Rajasthan. Koshuri ^(グ) 19:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Koshuri ^(グ) 19:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There are plenty of sources that significantly cover it. The article could be expanded though. [10] [11] [12] (pg 209) [13] (Page 221) [14] (pg 136) Noorullah (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Bayana

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

The article clearly fails WP:GNG, None of the cited sources provides WP:SIGCOV of this conflict. Koshuri ^(グ) 10:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, India, and Rajasthan. Koshuri ^(グ) 10:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alweo

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

Biography of an ancient person, not properly sourced as passing any of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. This literally just states that the subject existed and was related to other people -- but notability is not inherited, so just having relatives is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself, and the only "source" cited here is a user-generated family tree on a genealogy site, which is neither reliable nor notability-making. Also, this has already been sequestered in draftspace at least once, before being moved back into mainspace by its creator without any clear improvement. Bearcat (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect probably to List of monarchs of Mercia where he is shown in the family tree. Both his father and son are notable but for Alweo himself all we have is genealogical entries which even if properly sourced aren't really enough for a separate article without more. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per above. Æthelbald of Mercia#Early life and accession is also a potential redirect target. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vijayanagara Campaigns in Sri Lanka

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

The article fails WP:GNG and is full of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as none of the sources refers to any campaign name Vijayanagara Campaigns in Sri Lanka which lasted for 1386–1621 in the sources, the title itself is fabricated. Also, Most part of the article is written using AI. see Mr.Hanes Talk 14:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Sri Lanka, and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the article was based on the all the expeditions sent by Vijayanagara Emperors to Enforce Tribute on Sri Lanka there isn't a single book covering all the campaigns of vijaynagara in Sri Lanka so I used multiple sources to cover all the expeditions in one single article. For example check out ummayud campaigns in India the sources didn't mention the campaign name also that doesn't mean the article was fabricated. Lion of Ariana (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
there isn't a single book covering all the campaigns of vijaynagara in Sri Lanka so I used multiple sources to cover all the expeditions in one single article.– This is what we call WP:SYNTH, It is not allowed on wikipedia. Koshuri ^(グ) 18:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Using neural network language models on Wikipedia Check out this the notice board Lion of Ariana (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the topic is notable and well documented. See the New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara [15], also [16], [17], [18]. Herinalian (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All your sources mentions Vijayanagara Campaign against Bahmani Sultanate; while the article is about Vijayanagara Campaign against Sri Lanka. Consider withdrawing your keep vote. Mr.Hanes Talk 02:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Herinalian You should check the article and the sources you shared again. None of them are related to this article, All of the sources you shared mentions conflict between Vijaynagara and Bahmani sultanate. The article is about Vijaynagar campaigns in Sri Lanka. Koshuri ^(グ) 18:41, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete - The topic has significant coverage of Vijayanagara's campaigns in Sri Lanka and fulfills GNG, and this article should not be deleted because the sources do not mention the title. Different reliable sources describe various campaigns led by Vijayanagara—which does not violate WP:OR.Dam222 🌋 (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As per Koshuri Sultan, The article contains fictional timeline and no sources described about the event specifically Dam222 🌋 (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked all of the cited sources, None of them provides significant coverage to this campaign. None of the sources mentions that this campaign lasted for “1386–1621”, it's clearly a product of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. If you have any reliable source which mentions that this campaign lasted for 1386–1621 (as mentioned in the article) and provides significant coverage then share it here. Mr.Hanes Talk 17:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails WP:GNG. I couldn't find enough WP:SIGCOV in any of the sources cited in the article to establish Notability (WP:N). Another problem with the article is that it is heavily based on original research and synthesis none of the sources mentions this event as Vijayanagara Campaigns in Sri Lanka with the fictitious timeline mentioned in the article. Hence I see no point in keeping this article. Koshuri ^(グ) 18:39, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr.Hanes The timeline isn't fictional the first Expedition to Sri Lanka was launched by Emperor Hari Hara II under the command of Virupaksha Raya in 1386 AD and the last expedition sent to Sri Lanka in 1621 AD by Raghunatha Nayak he was subordinate to Emperor Rama Deva Raya Lion of Ariana (talk) 11:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it mentions independently that the timeline of the campaign is "1386–1621". It is clearly WP:OR Mr.Hanes Talk 11:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr.Hanes https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.119514/page/n138/mode/1up?view=theater check out this page numbers 117-122 Lion of Ariana (talk) 11:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Garuda ^Talk! 17:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as mentioned for the reasons above. Unless evidence exists to the contrary, the entire article is in effect a fabrication. DemocracyDeprivationDisorder (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mala Kladuša offensive

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

This article is essentially a duplicate of the Capture of Vrnograč article which has recently been improved to include all the fighting that led up to the capture of that town, including this town. There is insufficient material in reliable sources to justify two articles in any case. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Capture of Vrnograč, agree with nom that it is insufficient to justify two articles, might as well just combine the two. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 15:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carnatic expansion

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

The subject clearly fails WP:GNG. It violates WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH, There is no mention of anything called Carnatic expansion in the sources, It is entirely written in WP:FAN POV. Mr.Hanes Talk 08:43, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Rawn3012 (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is reliable and doesn't need to be deleted, the events mentioned in the article are true and need to be added more, "Carnatic expansion" shows the military, cultural and political impact from Karnataka in the Indian Subcontinent, like the "Karnatas Beyond The Forntiers" by P. B. Desai:

In North

In Bengal, the Chhumdakas-Nagas, the Rashtrakutas of Orissa, the Tailapa Vamshis, the Karnatas of Mithila, the Senas of Bengal^[1]

In South

Additionally, the Vijayanagara Empire which expanded over the South was known as Karnata or Kannada-desha^[2] through its dominions, making it one of the sutibale point to keep the page the Carnatic expansion

And there several things which can be added to this article Carnatic expansion, rather than deleting it

Keep: It includes well known, well documented historical events. Incidentally the influence of Karnataka on Harsh, the ruler of Kashmir is mentioned by Kalhana explicitly in Rajatarangini in several places. Chapter 7 shlokas 926-927, 935-937, 1119-1124.^[3]. It is also acknowledged by Sir Aurel Stein in his introduction. Malaiya (talk) 01:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't justifies the issues I've mentioned above. There's no such thing called Carnatic expansion in the sources which includes all the historical events in the article, It's full of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH mess. Rajatarangini is not a reliable source, see WP:PRIMARY. Mr.Hanes

Talk 05:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Desai, P .B. A History Of Karnataka (1970)ac 5024. pp. 211–214.
^ Sastri, K. A. Nilakanta. Further Source Of Vijayanagara History Vol I. p. 97.
^ Kalhanaʼs Rajatarangini. Vol. 1 by Kalhanaʼs Rajatarangini. Vol. 1 by Sir Aurel Stein, pages 340-355

Delete: As per nomination AlvaKedak (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at best, this is original research, which everybody knows that we've never done; at worst, it's irredentism disguised as a soapbox. Bearian (talk) 11:32, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Patti

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

Why is this even a battle? What significance does this battle give? It's just a Mughal victory of 10,000 versus five, Where is the notability or even significance at all of this? Noorullah (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a totally daft way of presenting what in the history books (including the ones cited) is called "the rebellion [or revolt] of Qasim Khan", a short-lived rebellion against Mughlani Begum. Uncle G (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Shellwood (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sikhism, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Page was vandalized by IPs and I added the best suitable changes back from an old revision. RangersRus (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't change a thing. It's not the figures. Its the description of this as a battle of Patti at all, when the sources, including Hari Ram Gupta the first one cited, are talking about Qasim Khan's rebellion. Most sources outright label it that way, in titles or in marginal summaries. (See, for example, the margin of Chhabra, G. S. (1968). Advanced History of the Punjab: Guru and post-Guru period upto Ranjit Singh. Vol. 1. New Academic Publishing. p. 400. LCCN 70913973. OL 5746881M. Qasim Khan's revolt.)
  That version of Gupta's History cited doesn't, choosing a tabloid-esque section title, but begins the account with "Bhikari Khan's rebellion was followed by that of Qasim Khan, a Turk, […]". Gupta's 1944, 1952, and 1978 editions of History of the Sikhs start the very same account with the section title "Qasim Khan's Rebellion, C. March 1754". It'a also how xyr earlier Later Mughal History Of The Panjab at the Internet Archive reads.
  It turns out that the version of Gupta cited here is a posthumous edition from 2007, from "Munshiram Manohai lal Publishers Pvt. Ltd." who appear to have sensationalized Gupta's original text. That is still no excuse for writing this as a "battle of", though, when the prose below the title is largely the same and describes a failed revolt right down to its ignominious end: "The same day they cut off his tent ropes, dragged him to the Begam who confined him within her palace enclosure and kept him under strict guard.".
  Uncle G (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - My note was just awareness about the mess and incorrect details on the page before I reverted to last suitable revision. You made some talking points for discussion. What title or description do you suggest? RangersRus (talk) 10:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - I thought about this as I was checking all of those history books, and if I were writing I wouldn't be writing a standalone article at all, but expanding Mughlani Begum, because her and the development of the Rakhi system are what the historians are talking about. Uncle G (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I see, so possible Merge instead of outright deletion? Sounds fine by me. Noorullah (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero mentions of any such "battle" in reliable sources available to me. Possibly merge salvagable content without redirect as per the above discussion. utcursch | talk 22:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Garuda ^Talk! 20:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Annagudi

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

Not a single mention of 'Annagudi' [19] in the sources, let alone having a conflict around this. Another poorly cited source which doesn't have pages and relies on 2 lines of mentions in footnotes of the book [20], doesn't give confidence that this event pass WP:SIGCOV & WP:GNG. Koshuri ^(グ) 15:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, India, Europe, and United Kingdom. Koshuri ^(グ) 15:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The proposer couldn't find "Annagudi" in the first source because the place is no longer known as Annagudi. The place is represented in the source as Kumbakonam [21]. The article indeed needs to get a fresh work, but not ready for deletion. One of the major reason for me to oppose the deletion is, it is a named battle, with much significance in the Second Anglo-Mysore War. The event is called by the name "Battle of Annagudi" by Spencer C. Tucker [22] (p-955), C. Hayavadana Rao [23] p-1317), and Narendra Krishna Sonna [24] (p-219). What makes it more notable is, it was the battle where Sir John Braithwaite, 1st Baronet got captured and imprisoned for 2 years. We get a lot of sources covering the event, eg:[25], [26], [27], [28]... Many Early British records are too available mentioning this conflict, which itself describe its importance.--Imperial ^[AFCND] 15:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it's named as 'Kumbakonam' I still found no mentions of the event besides in the appendix [29] which gives no insights of the 'battle'. This is inaccessible, even searching through sort method I found no more than 3 lines of coverage. C. Hayavadana Rao was a British official and his work by default falls into WP:RAJ and most of the last sources are also either old or Raj ones, which left us only two sources above which doesn't have enough significant coverage to have this topic its own article. Koshuri ^(グ) 15:49, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find any mentions in some of the sources, and the ones that do mention it, only do so briefly.^[1]^[2] Therefore this subject isn't notable enough for a standalone article. AlvaKedak (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History Proposed deletions

Hywel ab Owain (via WP:PROD on 2 November 2024)

History categories

for occasional archiving

Proposals

^ Hazlitt, William (2007). New Writings of William Hazlitt. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-920706-0.
^ Barua, Pradeep (2005-01-01). The State at War in South Asia. U of Nebraska Press. pp. 81–83. ISBN 978-0-8032-1344-9.

[1] Desai, P .B. A History Of Karnataka (1970)ac 5024. pp. 211–214.

[2] Sastri, K. A. Nilakanta. Further Source Of Vijayanagara History Vol I. p. 97.

[3] Kalhanaʼs Rajatarangini. Vol. 1 by Kalhanaʼs Rajatarangini. Vol. 1 by Sir Aurel Stein, pages 340-355

[4] Hazlitt, William (2007). New Writings of William Hazlitt. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-920706-0.

[5] Barua, Pradeep (2005-01-01). The State at War in South Asia. U of Nebraska Press. pp. 81–83. ISBN 978-0-8032-1344-9.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]