Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sikhism

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Sikhism. 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|Sikhism|~~~~}} 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 Sikhism. 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/Sikhism/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Sikhism

Battle of Kapuri

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

Contested PROD, copying PROD rationale: I see no evidence that this topic is notable. This is yet another "Battle of..." article spun out of descriptions of an entire campaign. There is approximately a sentence of encyclopedic content here that is specific to the named topic, and this content is appropriately covered in an article about the Sikh commander or his campaigns. I see no evidence that this title is used to describe this event, and a redirect is therefore inappropriate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Sikhism, and India. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The arguments laid out by Vanamonde93 are compelling. I checked the sources and here is my review:
1 - 4 lines of coverage.
2 - One paragraph but details directly relating to the conflict are not more than 2-3.
4 is same as #1.
5 - One paragraph.
6 - 4 lines.
7 - 1 line.
8 - 7 lines.
9 - significant coverage but the reliability of source is questionable, the author does not appear to be a historian [1]. Zalaraz (talk) 02:21, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 02:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom rationale. The article sourcing presents a very limited independent coverage of Banda Singh Bahadur campaign. A standalone article is not warranted based on current sourcing. Chronos.Zx (talk) 06:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Fade258 (talk) 11:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kiri Pathan (1714)

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

Contested PROD. Copying my PROD rationale: I see no evidence that this topic is notable. This is another "Battle of..." article spun out of descriptions of an entire campaign. There are two sentences of encyclopedic content here specific to the named topic, and this content is appropriately covered in an article about the Sikh commander or his campaigns. I see no evidence that this title is used to describe this event, and a redirect is therefore not appropriate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Sikhism, and India. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. A non-notable battle that I can't find any RS's about. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 01:35, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wives of Ranjit Singh

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

The majority of the prose of this article has been copied from the article on Ranjit Singh, the article on Ranjit Singh is around 5000 words and is not large enough to warrant splitting into sub topics, per WP:SPLIT. Without the prose, this article was essentially a list of wives/consorts/concubines(the status of many remain unclear) he had. The topic as a whole is not notable , the scholarly sources do cover his wives but not in a way that it may be thought of as an independent topic, journalistic sources such as Canadian Bazaar & Telegraph are not WP:HISTRS and do not contribute to assessment of notability. Zalaraz (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Zalaraz (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article creator, here. Re-posting my talk page comment here. I actually wrote much of the article myself using scholarly sources (some parts in the "History" section were taken from the main article, see: [2]. But the article lede, "titles" section, and the list were created by me, also some of the history section itself was written by me. Also, editor @GillRomesLado also put in substantial efforts to the article. Also, plenty of other articles covering the wives/spouses of monarchs and historical figures exist, such as:

And so-on and so-forth. So I do not understand why this article cannot exist, considering Ranjit Singh had many wives. Plenty of reliable sources to support the notability of this article, as well. Also, some books have been written on individual wives of his, such as [3]. Furthermore, Priya Atwal's book 'Royals and Rebels: The Rise and Fall of the Sikh Empire', goes into extensive detail on his wives, and has been cited in the article. The main article's section on his wives can be condensed/summarized, with the main bulk of content hosted on this article. The Telegraph source was an extraction from the book 'The Last Sunset: The Rise & Fall of the Lahore Durbar', not an opinion piece by a journalist. Sure, I should have referenced the actual book but I do not have a copy of it. Do not remember what was hosted on the Canadian Bazaar source, link is dead now and was not archived by the Internet Archive. It can be removed since it does not appear to have been used to support much content. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your majority contribution here was adding a list and writing a lede, but the rest of the prose was split from the main article. The list you created is a copyright violation as it completely copies the list made by Priya Atwal in the appendix of her book:

If we discount the lede and section on titles you wrote( both of which can be covered there , as the article can still take in more content before requiring a split as you have done), there is nothing here that is not already covered at the main page. Zalaraz (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Lists of people, Sikhism, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:35, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Little to no original content, this article simply duplicates the main article without providing any additional information, the list prepared is also taken verbatim from the source. Chronos.Zx (talk) 03:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Given the copyright concerns and the topic not being notable. I will second a redirect to the main article as an alternative. Wisher08 (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Covered in multiple scholarly sources (Atwal 2020; Grewal; Khushwant Singh; Lafont) discussing court politics and royal women of the Lahore Durbar. Comparable to Wives of Henry VIII and Wives of Genghis Khan. Minor overlap and sourcing issues are fixable per WP:PRESERVE and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE not grounds for deletion. The topic is notable as part of Ranjit Singh’s dynastic and political history. Heraklios 19:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming that it is notable without providing any evidence won't work. Zalaraz (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Reads like a fancruft. The subject is not notable on its own. NavjotSR (talk) 10:43, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:11, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is obviously a topic of academic historical interest, as evidenced by the sources providing significant coverage of the subject. The wives have independent notability, and merging this to Ranjit Singh would create issues of WP:UNDUE weight.Katzrockso (talk) 06:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, please show the sources which support this notion, his wives were not independently notable either. Zalaraz (talk) 06:47, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me correct my comment, whether or not independent notability exists (which I think it does) is materially irrelevant to the WP:GNG which states nowhere in the guideline that the significant coverage (undisputed by you) must be garnered for a particular reason or another, just that the significant coverage of the topic exists. Katzrockso (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@zalarax, if you think a topic is not notable it would be useful if you explain why. Just making the claim is not very helpful. Lijil (talk) 07:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject of his wives is not notable. Taking into consideration that the only major aspect of the article which is not already given at Ranjit Singh, that being the list, faces copyright issues, I fully support the deletion of this article. — EarthDude (Talk) 07:53, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unimpressed with unsubstantiated claims of notability. The content is duplicative of the main article and the list is copyright infringement. The article can be restored to being a Redirect as it was before being brought to AfD. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 08:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. These women are notable in their own right. They clearly meet WP:BASIC. As MaplesyrupSushi has noted, there's a precedence of notable wives having their own Wikipedia articles. See for example, Wives of Henry VIII and Wives of Genghis Khan. Some of Ranjit Singh's wives even have their own articles, such as Mehtab Kaur and Jind Kaur - I'm struggling to see how much more you'd need to be convinced these women are important and meet the requirement for their own article. I appreciate that the article needs some cleaning up, I'd absolutely like to help with this. But to erase these women by suggesting that they are not notable? Katiedevi (talk) 21:33, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If they have their own article then this article is simply redundant, it is perplexing to see people defending copyright infringement which is all this article doing by copying the appendix from the book. Your argument is completely lacking in policy. Zalaraz (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked on the first half of the article, removing original research and source mining reliable sources already present in the article. The Encyclopaedia of Sikhism is littered with entries to Ranjit Singh's wives. Why should we delete an article about women when we can put in the effort to improve it?

I haven't been able to remove all of the copyright material with this edit, but my substantial reworking demonstrates that this article can be improved so that it doesn't infringe any copyright policies. As for policies, WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, WP:BB, WP:POTENTIAL, and WP:IMPROVEIT. Katiedevi (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should prove how the topic meets notability first. Mere assertions of notability are not enough. We already have articles on his individual wives, we already have an article on him of which this article was duplicated from. Zalaraz (talk) 08:29, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Absolutely fails WP:GNG, sources do not treat it as a standalone topic. The fact that the article had to be created using copied information from elsewhere and still is regurgitating the same means deleting it would not affect anything. Azuredivay (talk) 12:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:katiedevi and in addition less "notable" historical subjects like this is exactly what wikipedia is for--it's a place for research. I appreciate the fact that this article on the wives of Ranjit Singh, the founder of the Sikh Empire exists. Agnieszka653 (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That argument is just WP:OSE. You must prove independent notability of the subject. Wikipedia is not "a place for research" either, which if this article is doing, then it should be deleted per WP:OR. Zalaraz (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these women are notable, that's why they have been written about in reliable sources, including scholarly ones. Thanks also to Katieddevi for improving the article. --UnpetitproleX (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTNOTABLE won't work. You must prove notability of the subject as whole, especially when the content is duplication of already existing ones. Zalaraz (talk) 00:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but did you miss the part 'they have been written about in reliable sources, including scholarly ones'? There are multiple of those on the article itself. Please do not misrepresent my comment to say that it is something (JUSTNOTABLE) which it is not. UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The above WP:OSE argument is not able to verify WP:GNG which the subject absolutely fails. Not to mention the copyright issues which further confirms that the article was wrongly created. Shankargb (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how the topic fails notability? Which sources in the article fail? All the delete arguments here seem to be sidetracking from the basic question of whether the topic is covered in independent and reliable sources. If you think it should be deleted, please explain why. The “it was copied” argument is no longer valid since this was addressed. The article has also been expanded with new sources. The fact that somebody argued WP:OSE isn’t in itself a reason to delete an article. We should be discussing the article itself here, not trying to derail the discussion about it. Lijil (talk) 07:30, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist. I don't see a consensus here yet. If you can prove this is a copyright violation, you can pursue that deletion outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:56, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - there are many sources that discuss the wives, not just individual wives, including one about the role of women courtesans and performers in Anglo/Punjab relations [8], an article about four of the wives being burnt on Ranjit Singh's funeral pyre [9] and a book that aims to "the role played in the rise and fall of the 'Sikh Empire' by the ruling women and young princes of Ranjit Singh's new royal house" (see p. 4).[10] There is also a recent novel about the last of the wives by Chitra Banerjee Divakaruni, The Last Queen, and the book is notable though it doesn't yet have a Wikipedia article, as it has several solid reviews.[11], [12], [13]. Lijil (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the novel The Last Queen does have a Wikipedia page. Lijil (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources provided above are enough for notability. Regarding copyright, I trimmed the table by removing information on the wives' background, property, and pensions, leaving the name, religion, marriage year, death year, and "Dependents, issues, or heirs". In this state, I suppose the table doesn't pass the threshold of originality. (WP:LIMITED). Kelob2678 (talk) 11:10, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous