Battle of Akora Khattak: So is it one battle or synthases of more than one action?  Also all of the sources seem to be single-line mentions, (at least the ones that I can check).  Slatersteven ( talk ) 16:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions .  Slatersteven ( talk ) 16:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Military , Sikhism , Afghanistan ,  and Pakistan .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP This article has many solid Book references that are all working properly.  I checked today to confirm it.  Added an additional archived reference to the article today...  Ngrewal1 ( talk ) 20:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 16:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Most sources are unreliable and  some are hard to verify.  Couple sources have one-liners about the battle except for one.  The date is disputed among sources.  I do not see any useful contribution of this article.  RangersRus ( talk ) 02:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A significant battle and has good coverage in reliable sources.  Referencing can be improved but the sources already present in the article are also enough to have this article on Wikipedia.  Muneebll ( talk ) 10:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 04:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, NotAGenious ( talk ) 06:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Nothing of value in this article.  Even the sources are questionable which do not sgree with one another.  23.25.75.145 ( talk ) 17:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Niche article and heavy reliance on snippets and questionable citations.  The information here is so poorly-framed I wouldn't know what to do with it as-is.  208.184.20.115 ( talk ) 18:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep sufficient WP:RS exist detailing the battle, and most of the references cited in the article do provide full view.  I don't know on which basis some editors here can call it poorly sourced.  One just has to visit the article to verify that the sources are good enough to merit a stand-alone article.  Sutyarashi ( talk ) 06:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note for closer : Please take a closer look at the ! votes of IPs, because they are very clearly sockpuppets based on their similar arguments and the fact that they have made edit only at this AfD thread.  Sutyarashi ( talk ) 09:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] DELETE The refs provided are only short passing mentions and I don’t see anything more substantial.  There isn't much in detail about the battle then a sentence or two.  63.86.0.91 ( talk ) 21:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not every individual fight mentioned somewhere in a book needs its own article especially when there is not enough information in multiple articles.  Major Conflicts in sources in every aspect and most are just unreliable.  173.167.254.157 ( talk ) 22:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : article creator was CU-blocked not long after creating this article.  -- asilvering ( talk ) 01:38, 6 February 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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus