Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Pharwala

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Pharwala

[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)

Nominated at PROD, article creator deleted template. Looks like a reproduction of a Baburnama passage. Article subject is a minor skirmish with no indication of meeting WP:GNG. Article title inflated to create illusion of importance. Sources are either WP:PRIMARY or do not meet WP:RS. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2022 (UTC) Note: most of the article has been deleted because of plagiarism issues. Above issues still remain. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have concerns about a number of articles created by this editor, which seem to be minor actions expanded into battles, or synthesis of passing mentions, and often other sources either don’t mention the subject or give significantly different details. In this case there was a battle at Pharwala in 1519, but no source other than the Baburnama seems to cover it in detail, and we din’t just copy out slabs of material to make an article. Mccapra (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the arguments of Mccapra and AirshipJungleman29. Have you noticed that all these horrible sourced battle/siege articles always end up with a (alleged) victory for a state with at least some sort of Turkic connection? Perhaps we should begin to ask if WP:POV comes into play here. The creator of this article certainly hasn't tried to hide their xenophobic side, that's for sure [1]. If this editing pattern continues, I don't see why WP:ANI isn't an option. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly Rename and repurpose -- It is clear there was no battle: the article might properly be called Capture of Pharwala (1518). I see no reason in principle why we should not regard Baburnama as a reliable source. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Peterkingiron, do you not think point 5 of WP:PRIMARY relevant? ("Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.") ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:PRIMARY is a concern along with no page numbers. This mass production of "battles" smells of POV pushing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2022 (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.