Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Michni (2nd nomination)

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. ✗plicit 03:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Michni

Battle of Michni (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)

Zero sources/references at all. Noorullah (talk) 02:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, Afghanistan, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unsourced article on a likely unnotable battle.

  -Samoht27 (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article literally has no sources cited. Based Kashmiri (talk)
• Keep. I remembered I voted on this page when it was first nominated but all the sources were removed without concensus that I added back. Vote is still keep noting two reliable sources by historians Bansal and Sandhu. Passes
  WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator should check and see if sources have been removed before claiming an article is unsourced. They were added back and then removed again.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, It could be considered disingenuous to nominate an article when the sources had previously been removed, so posting this diff from after last afd. That said, like many of these "battle" articles, the sourcing is weak and does not assert clear notability of the subject. It's worth noting also we should not conflate the term "historian" which can either be an individual who has had their work peer reviewed and verified, versus someone who considers themselves as such, i.e. self proclaimed (this seemed to form part of the rationale in the previous afd). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No reliable sources whatsoever. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 11:23, 22 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.