Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Ali Masjid (1839)

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. Owen× ☎ 15:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ali Masjid (1839)

[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)

Another one of these pages. -- Poorly sourced with sources that fail WP:HISTRS, some sources also fall under WP:RAJ. Noorullah (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Afghanistan. Shellwood (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how this article is Poorly sourced? Alvin1783 (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these sources are not WP:RS/WP:HISTRS, this has been a growing issue where many of these pages are poorly sourced as per my numerous other AFD's opened on such. Some are unreliable primary sources that can fall under WP:RAJ for example. As @Southasianhistorian8 said accurately on this AFD: "Moreover, we're seeing a trend of editors creating articles based on small paragraphs from select one or two books solely so they can inundate Wikipedia with pages promoting religious heroism." Noorullah (talk) 03:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, he is prolly biased cuz he is Afghan himself. 1 Princeton and 1 Cambridge source itself, how is it even poor lol. Unless you're gonna Cambridge (one of the best unis in the world) unreliable. 2 more Punjab university and 1 more Uni of California source. I think it's alright. Akshunwar (talk) 07:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most of the information is written from unreliable sources, other sources fail WP:V. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a cambridge source tho??? As well as a Princeton source??? Akshunwar (talk) 07:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Akshunwar, this [1] "Cambridge source" is indeed unreliable. Take time and see WP: AGEMATTERS and WP:RAJ. A 175 year old book could never be cited here, especially with Raj influence. About the Princeton press, I can only see an intro part (that too not related to the article's scope) being cited. And Meh, he is prolly biased cuz he is Afghan himself, is a personal attack. See WP:PA. Comment on the topic for you're here, not on the person. Imperial ^[AFCND] 16:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the Sources now fit WP:RAJ and are from Renowned Historians dont need to delete Alvin1783 (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Per nom. Can neither find "Battle of Ali Masjid" in WP:RS neither.--Imperial ^[AFCND] 05:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also commenting:

The user that created the page attempted to remove the AFD notice: [2]. Noorullah (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the Sources now fit WP:RAJ and are from Renowned Historians dont need to delete Alvin1783 (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources pass the WP:RAJ issue as noted earlier. None of the sources are WP: RAJ in this article and the issues that were initially pointed have been since corrected. The current sources on the page such as Khushwant Singh and Ganda Singh are more then WP:RS. This page meets all the requirements that were pointed out. Further page 10 by Ganda Singh clearly show the success at Ali Masjid by the Sikh service.[3]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Festivalfalcon873 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: The Sources now Fit WP:RAJ and are from Reputable historians such as Ganda Singh the Primary sources were also replaced with Reliable ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvin1783 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Many of the new sources added are still not WP:RS or WP:HISTRS at all. Richard Macrory; Not a historian, Mathew, K.S; not a historian, Lal Suri, Sohan; a primary source, "Journal of Sikh Studies, Volume 9"; Not a reliable source, Singh, Khushwant; Not a historian, Hoiberg, Dale; Not a historian.

Point is most of the citations on this page are not from historians at all, thus not being reliable sources. Noorullah (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding comment: Some of the content in the article is stating complete lies: I quote "As Akbar Khan stood at the entrance of the pass, waiting for the oncoming enemy, he was informed with dismay that Ghazni had fallen." (Article cited page 43), Source: "On July 7, 1839 'Ali Masjid was lost to forces under Wade and Shahzada Timur". [4]

There is 0 mention at all of any Sikh commander.

Second example of the same source:

Article: "Dost Mohammed Khan recalled his son to Kabul once Ali Masjid fell to Col. Sheikh Basawan and Shahzada Timur's army on July 27, 1839". (page 75) Source: [5] Source is entirely unrelated to this at all. Noorullah (talk) 06:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Noorullah21 Hey so for the first one i managed to fix that issue by including the correct citation. The information was actually quoting a source called "Anglo Sikh relations" rather than Christine Noelle. Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2024 (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.