Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afghan-Mughal Wars

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 all. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan-Mughal Wars

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

Original research - this list and numbering of wars appears to be a concept invented by the creator of this and the related articles. I've deleted several of those for copyright violations, and there is still copyvio in the rest. Most of that is probably just cut and paste without attribution from other articles, but I haven't had time to check every line. Dougweller (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because for the same reason - I can't find sources for bunching these campaigns together in numbered wars:

Delete Yes you have deleted 4 articles per G12.[1], [2],[3][4] I had originally watchlisted one of these articles because I had reviewed it. I knew that they are going to end up on AfD. While these remaining articles are not totally hoax. Due to their inaccuracy it was a good idea to bring them to AfD. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

REname -- I am not convinced that any of this is a hoax. All appear to have published sources, which suggests they should be kept and improved. However if the numbering is WP:OR, we should rename, by removing the numbers leaving Afghan-Mughal War (1555–1561). I know little of Indian history and am thus unable to comment more specifically. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User:Peterkingiron, I'm not suggesting this is a hoax. I'm suggesting that these are artificial constructs. Can you find a source for an "Afghan-Mughal War (1555–1561)"? Or even just one ""Afghan-Mughal War"? Note that the linked article Battle of Panipat (1556) doesn't mention such a war. Dougweller (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Afghan-Mughal Wars but keep and rename the rest. I agree with the nominator to the extent that the fact that most of the main leaders of the Mughals' opponents in each of these wars could be described as Afghan is almost totally irrelevant to why the wars happened - and thus the grouping, and even more the numbering, does constitute synthesis. But individually, of one ignores the "Afghan-Mughal" description, the articles do each describe groups of campaigns that belong together and are reasonably described as discrete wars. The so-called "Third Afghan-Mughal War" starts with the Suri Empire splitting between contending heirs, and in each of the campaigns, right through to the capture of Chunar in 1561, the Mughals' primary opponent is either one or other of the Suri heirs or Hemu, who comes to power by overthrowing a Suri. After 1561, there is only one Suri heir still in power, in Bengal - he is overthrown a little later by the Karrani dynasty. The so-called "Fourth Afghan-Mughal War" is the campaigns in which the Mughals overthrow the Karrani dynasty and reclaim Bengal. The so-called "Fifth Afghan-Mughal War" is the struggles between the Mughals and, at first, Pir Roshan and, afterwards, his followers, the Roshaniyya. PWilkinson (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment PWilkinson, and Peterkingiron again, how is this not Wikipedia creating a topic no reliable sources have written about? How is this not original research? And as I've pointed out, there is a lot of copyvio, at least from other articles, in these. Another issue I know, but who is going to fix it? Dougweller (talk) 09:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, renaming the articles on individual wars to Afghan-Mughal War (1555–1561), Afghan-Mughal War (1573–1576) and Afghan-Mughal War (1580–1630), or something more appropriate (e.g. Afghan-Mughal campaigns (1555–1561)). These conflicts certainly seem to have occurred, but I can see no evidence they have been formally numbered by historians as they have been here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment -- The merits of the individual articles needs to be the subject of a separate discussion, which may result in them getting a completely different name. For the moment, I will support Necrothesp 's suggestion. Once we have dropped the ordinal, I see no reason why there should not be a series of Requested Moves to provide better individual names. As I indicated my knowledge of Indian history is slight, but an article with citations to reliable sources should not be deleted out of hand, but merged, redirected or renamed. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but... delete the existing contents and merge the other articles into it, since they have problematic numbering schemes, as others have noted above. Pax 07:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a list not an article, so too little is lost to worry about what's worth keeping. The title alone is too big a problem. Srnec (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Probably~~ delete ~~- but merging all content here might work~~ Fails to meet WP:GNG. In each of these war articles, most claims are made without citing any sources. When sources are cited, it is to support incidental statements and not to establish that any source identified these Afghan-Mughal conflicts as distinct events. There could be a Wikipedia article about Afghan-Mughal conflicts between a date range, perhaps even 1500-1800, but I see no reason to divide all of these wars and name them as they are named here. This seems like WP:OR and no WP:RS is used as supporting evidence to think otherwise.

I checked the talk page of the article creator. It seems that originally, this person copy-pasted some copyrighted content into Wikipedia, and based on the state of the articles now, the lack of citations indicates to me a lack of understanding that citations must be used. I fear that these articles are the result of a misunderstanding that Wikipedia has to reflect what has already been published, and should not present new ideas. I appreciate the effort because a lot of effort and research went into this.

I could be wrong about the deletion. The concept of the conflict is a notable topic and an alternative could be to merge all content from other articles here and to remove the seemingly arbitrary date and numbering system. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking more, the content which is backed by sources is about 15 sentences among 3 articles. This content alone cannot be pieced together to create a meaningful narrative. Wikipedia is not a place to keep isolated facts, so this set of isolated facts cannot be kept here to establish an article on "Afghan-Mughal conflict". While I do support the creation of an "Afghan-Mughal conflict" article, I do not feel that the content here can be the basis of that. Starting over while having a citation for every sentence would be the easiest way. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about possible merger The articles created by this editor were mainly copyvio from external sources, but quite a bit is copy and paste from our articles. I left that for the time being due to the time it would take to sort out where that came from (there's also some unidentifable material which I'd say is almost certainly copyvio as well). If we take this unattributed material, which is in fact a copvio violation even though it is copied from our own articles, and merge it somehow, we are simply making the copyvio worse and much harder to sort out. Dougweller (talk) 09:45, 15 May 2015 (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.