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. Significant concerns raised over sourcing and policy related matters (including WP:OR and WP:COPYVIO) with no assertions of WP:HEY rectifying the problems. Goldsztajn (talk) 12:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahluwalia–Ramgarhia War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

There is no conflict such as the "Ahluwalia–Ramgarhia War", sources do not support it and provide no significant coverage to a conflict under this name. This article is a part of a series of fringe pseudohistorical articles created for ethno-religious POV pushing. Srijanx22 (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Obvious hoax article, if ends up on a section on Wikipedia's finest list of hoax articles I wouldn't be surprised. An editor from Mars (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: Sources are quite clear in establishing the notability of this conflict, the nominator is currently on his spree of nominating my articles for deletion just to take revenge for this SPI:
  • [1]: 3 pages of coverage.
  • [2]: Another 3 pages of coverage.
  • [3]: Same. Heraklios 17:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I can read only snippets of one source that I looked for, but at the very least the people purported to be involved in this conflict existed, and skirmishes are referred to. Unlikely to be a complete hoax from what I can see Reconrabbit 19:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Coverage exists and isn't a hoax. The article is fine. This seems to be part some sort of revenge spree. RachelTensions (talk) 13:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete sources exist that proves the content is genuine. But the article title is indeed pseudohistory. The available content could be merged into any of the parent articles. Academic sources lacks covering this as an individual war.Borax || (talk to Borax) 14:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. AlvaKedak (talk) 10:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per An editor from Mars. None of the sources provided by article creator Heraklios establish the authenticity of this conflict, let alone significant coverage. Koshuri ^(グ) 07:33, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The subject matter is clearly notable when viewed through a neutral point of view. The only issue seems to be the title of the article, which could be changed later. Please refrain from filing articles for deletion simply to escalate disputes between editors or groups of editors, Wikipedia is not a battleground. AlvaKedak (talk) 12:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The coverage in the sources is not enough and none of the sources support this neologism made up by the author "Ahluwalia - Ramgarhia war" , in fact sources do not even support that this was a war, sources at best refer to it as skirmishes and do not provide significant coverage to them. Anyway given the author's history of making copyvio, I doubt this article is free of it. The relevant details (not closely paraphrased) can be covered at the articles of relevant personalities. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is nothing called the "Ahluwalia–Ramgarhia War" and the sourcing is also poor. desmay (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This source starts with- The long standing rivalry between the two Jassa Singhs...Zahura on the Beas became a scene of battle between Jassa Singh Ahluwalia and jassa Singh Ramgarhia in 1775. and this flow follows in the other 2 pages. Somehow it tells us that a conflict existed between the two parties.Shakakarta (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakakarta (talk • contribs) [reply]

  • That is called WP:SYNTH. Your own research cannot be used. We need reliable sources and they certainly don't exist for this subject. Capitals00 (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    No one is combining multiple sources to get a fan favoured article, you need to revisit WP:SYNTH. Shakakarta (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unverifiable as already described above. Even if it is not a hoax as "keep" voters suggest, then still the issues raised about the article remain unresolved because the sources do not support the named conflict. Capitals00 (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Input from editors familiar with milhist but who do not normally edit in this topic area would be hugely welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I can't find the article title in those sources which I can see but, worse, a quick check shows that there are copyright issues. For example, the last paragraph is far too close a paraphrase of the cited source. - Sitush (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Sitush is correct, there are serious close paraphrasing issues in the article, combine that with dubious notability and the obviously made up title, are sufficient grounds for deletion. Raymond3023 (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2025 (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.