Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Sarsa

:{{la|Battle of Sarsa}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Battle_of_Sarsa Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Battle of Sarsa}})

No sources, biased information, violates NPOV policy and is propaganda. Also, there is a lack of impartial/neutral information pertaining to this event in English. Xtremedood (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because [No sources, biased information, violates NPOV policy and is propaganda. Also, there is a lack of impartial/neutral information pertaining to this event in English.]:

:{{La|Battle of Sirhind}}

• :Comment The "battle of Sirhind" should be [https://books.google.com/books?id=tW_eEVbVxpEC&pg=PA948&dq=Sirhind+1710&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pgwSVe6KMMGIsQSTnIKYCA&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Sirhind%201710&f=false "Siege of Sirhind"]. As for battle of Sarsa, I found this [https://books.google.com/books?id=9RzzxcEL4C0C&pg=PA220&dq=battle+Sarsa+1704+Sikh+Militancy+in+the+Seventeenth+Century&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NwoSVYzsMsWogwSFv4C4BA&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=battle%20Sarsa%201704%20Sikh%20Militancy%20in%20the%20Seventeenth%20Century&f=false source]. Now whether there is enough information to write an article on either conflict is another issue. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment For me reading this article was rather discombobulating. No where near enough content to put the article in a constellation of understanding. If this battle was part of a war, mention it in that wars article. if it wasn't mention it in the history of the mentioned countries. I felt like I had so little to go on I wouldn't even know where to start researching this to help the article out. Bryce Carmony (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
• Probably keep – When I started searching for sources about the "Battle of Sarsa" I was truly perplexed, since the only websites mentioning it seemed to link back to this Wikipedia article. Then I started searching for related terms, such as "Gobind Singh". (Oh look there's a Wiki article: Guru Gobind Singh.) It became clear that the river in question is more commonly spelled Sirsa. Parivar Vichora is apparently a site on this river, related to the Battle of Sirsa. [http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20021019/windows/slice.htm Here's a mention]. Here's a [http://www.sikh-history.com/sikhhist/martyrs/sahibzade.html longer discussion] from sikh-history.com. So I dunno, it seems like a pretty significant event, widely recognized as happening, at least within the Sikh tradition. Maybe the article looks like "propaganda" right now, with the spin currently given, but do you think the event didn't happen? Do you (Xtremedood) know of any good sources discussing this place and time which might have better information? groupuscule (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

::Thanks. I have found more information, however I believe at the current the information should be kept simple. I have made considerable changes to it, however the pages are prone to vandalism on a regular basis, which I think qualified editors should look out for. Xtremedood (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. Seem to have occurred, ergo are probably notable. We can't expect as many sources for such battles as we would have for battles involving Western European or North American countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: This was tagged as a speedy deletion as something that was edited by a sockpuppet account, but I'm declining it because there have been edits from others (albeit mostly from the AfD nominator) and there's just enough of an assertion of notability here to where it'd probably be better for this to go through a full AfD since it's already in progress. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

:*Basically there's two people here who seem at least somewhat interested in keeping the article and (presumably) improving it to show notability. However at the same time there is still an impetus to prove notability for the battle since there have been many, many battles throughout history, some with names and some without. A battle occurring and receiving a name does not automatically mean that it's notable. It can make it easier to find sources, but it's pretty typical for historians (amateur or professional) to label battles in order to keep dates and facts straight. What we have here is a siege that is sourced by one source. It's by a reliable publisher but the book contains information about thousands of battles and isn't really the type of source that we'd keep on that basis alone since it contains many, many entries. This needs more sourcing to really prove that it was a notable event. Now this shouldn't be taken as an endorsement for deletion, just that right now based on the sources there really isn't a strong assertion that this battle would pass notability guidelines based on the single source. It is, however, enough to where I think it should continue through AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. 67 Google Book results suggest something clearly happened. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

: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.