Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet : Same content with different title.  See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala Tibetan War .  Imperial [AFCND] 14:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , History , Military , China ,  and India .  Imperial [AFCND] 14:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet has no issues like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala Tibetan War as you said.  This article is Notable and has been given significant coverage by reliable sources.  Devapāla came into conflict with Tibet , there is nothing impossible in this because Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-srong-lda-btsan and his son Mu-teg-btsan-po subdued India and forced Raja Dharma- pala to submit.  Devapāla also may have come to clash with them and defeated them.  [15] Devapāla might have come into conflict with Tibet ; there is nothing impossible in this because Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-Srong-Ida-Btsan and his son Mu-teg-Btsan-po subdued India and forced Dharma- pāla to submit.  Devapāla also may have clashed with them and defeated them [16] Based Kashmiri ( talk ) 15:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please stop listing down this big {{tq}} here.  It was already a mess at the earlier discussion.  Comment down if you've any possible arguments that could potentially save the article.  I am pretty sure you haven't read what WP: NOTABILITY , and this reflects everywhere in the AFD.  Long paragraphs are not the factor that determines whether it passes GNG or not.  And I can see you've duplicated the text twice here.  Imperial [AFCND] 19:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This event is notable and has received significant coverage in Reliable Sources ( WP:RS ) and it passes WP:GNG & WP:SIGCOV and this isn't WP:OR since reliable sources mention the event as Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet .  Also what do you mean by "And I can see you've duplicated the text twice here."??  I gave you two reliable sources which mentions the event in a similar way.  Based Kashmiri ( talk ) 04:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Based Kashmiri , what you've done is exposed plagiarism.  They mention the event in a similar way because one source plagiarized the other , not because this is a conventional way to write about this.  -- asilvering ( talk ) 19:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As per the WP:DEL-REASON guideline, there is no reason to delete this article and I have provided multiple reliable sources about this event here in the replies below.  Based Kashmiri ( talk ) 11:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Do we have evidence that one of these sources plagiarised the other?  Cortador ( talk ) 06:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ "Bigg Boss 17: Sana Raees Khan On Equation With Vicky Jain - "If He Would Have Come Alone..." ^ "Aryan Khan's lawyer Sana Raees Khan lands in trouble for participating in Salman Khan's 'Bigg Boss 17' " . ^ "Aryan Khan's lawyer Sana Raees Khan gets involved in another controversy, Faizan Ansari calls her 'FRAUD' and 'CRIMINAL' " . ^ "Bigg Boss 17 Under Fire: Bombay HC Lawyer Complains To Bar Council Over Advocate Sana Raees Khan's Participation In Show" . ^ "Sana Raees Khan's Legal brilliance prevails, secures win" . ^ "Aryan Khan's lawyer Sana Raees Khan talks about how we can tackle issue of body shaming – 'Education and awareness' " . ^ "Supreme court lawyer Sana Raees Khan proves her mettle once again, wins case representing builder Indrapal Patil in the infamous Bhiwandi building collapse case" . ^ "Bigg Boss 17: Meet Sana Raees Khan, Lawyer Of Sheena Bora And Aryan Khan Drug Cases" . ^ "Advocate Sana Raees Khan becomes contestant in Hindi reality show 'Bigg Boss' " . ^ "Bigg Boss 17 fame Sana Raees Khan bags web series titled The Indrani Mukerjea Story: Buried Truth" . ^ "BB 17's Sana Raees Khan Defends Indrani Mukerjea In Buried Truth Docu-Series; Shares Promo" . ^ Ethel E. Ewing (1961). Our Widening World: A History of the World's Peoples . Rand McNally. p. 59. ^ William Oscar Emil Oesterley (1914). The Books of the Apocrypha: Their Origin, Teaching and Contents . Revell. p. 12. ^ James Talboys Wheeler (1853). An Analysis and Summary of New Testament History: Including the Four Gospels Harmonized ... the Acts ... an Analysis of the Epistles and Book of Revelation ... the Critical History, Geography, Etc., with Copious Notes, Historical, Geographical and Antiquarian . Arthur Hall, Virtue, and Company. p. 28. ^ Sinha, Bindeshwari Prasad (1974). Comprehensive History Of Bihar Vol.1; Pt.2 . ^ Diwakar, R. R. (1958). Bihar through the ages . Delete . This is obviously a recreation of the previously deleted article. It does have a better title, in that it is no longer claiming there was a "Pala Tibetan War", but this is the same issue. We can write about this hypothetical conflict (one of the sources you list above even says "might have"!) on Devapala (Pala dynasty) . If eventually we find sources to justify a separate article, we can spin out out from Devapala (Pala dynasty) . But we did not find those sources in the last AfD, so I doubt we will find them here either. While I'm looking at that article, I note that we also have the sentences There is nothing impossible as the Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-srong-lda-btsan and his son Mu-teg-btsan-po subdued India and forced Dharmapāla to submit. Therefore, Devapāla must have also clashed with and defeated the Tibetan kings. Not only does this not follow the sources (our article says "must have", while neither source says so), it is obviously plagiarism. -- asilvering ( talk ) 19:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not a recreation of the previously deleted article, also this article doesn't have any issues like that article, if you think there is any issue in this article then list them down. The previous article had issues with the "Dharmapāla's Conflict with Tibetans" section and the "Conflict with Nepal" section, which is excluded from this article. This article focuses on the conflict between Devapala and Tibet, with reliable sources mentioning the event as "Devapala's Conflict with Tibet. " The main problem with the previous article was the uncited title, but this article provides reliable sources to support its claim. Based Kashmiri ( talk ) 15:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't mean "it literally contains the exact same words as the previous article". If that were the case, it could just be nominated for speedy deletion. I mean "it is in effect the same article with the same problems", which is true. At least one of the two reliable sources you brought up above appears to be plagiarized , so not only is this not two separate sources with in-depth coverage, it's only one source with very brief coverage. This can easily be written about on Devapala (Pala dynasty) if necessary. (But I'd advise against plagiarising a plagiarised source to do so.) -- asilvering ( talk ) 19:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This article cannot be deleted for the reasons you've provided, as per the Wikipedia deletion policy WP:DEL-REASON . Additionally, here are some additional reliable sources about this event: (1) (2) (3) (4) Based Kashmiri ( talk ) 11:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] These sources do not support your case. -- asilvering ( talk ) 17:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Then explain how? Also you still haven't given any reasons to delete this article from as per the Wikipedia's deletion policy WP:DEL-REASON . Based Kashmiri ( talk ) 04:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The reason for deletion is simple, and it is the most common deletion reason that exists: this does not pass WP:GNG . We need multiple reliable, secondary sources that discuss the topic in depth . -- asilvering ( talk ) 10:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] : Delete per asilvering and Imperial Okmrman ( talk ) 04:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. Owen× ☎ 05:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] They do not have any valid reason to delete the article, Please provide a valid reason from WP:DEL-REASON . Based Kashmiri ( talk ) 08:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Okmrman And I just checked your User contributions and noticed you have voted for deletion for every single AFD you had discovered EVERY MINUTE, without even reading anything. Based Kashmiri ( talk ) 08:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Both @ Asilvering and @ ImperialAficionado haven't provided any valid reason to delete this article from WP:DEL-REASON , how can you agree with them? Based Kashmiri ( talk ) 08:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:14, 14 May 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, Owen× ☎ 05:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , this is simply not notable and has wrongly been re-created as an article with a different name. If this goes on a topic ban would be in order for the editor. Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 09:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note to closer : I think I can improve this article based on the concern raised in this discussion, let me work on this article further. I'd request the closer to please draftify it so I can improve this article. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 04:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I don't see enough evidence that this needs a standalone article. Even if it does when all history is put together, it's clear the author does not yet have the requisite experience to write that article. It would have to be started from scratch and by a more experienced editor, which can be them in the future, but I think deleting is best for now to put an end to the disruption. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : There's so much WP:Synthesis present in these creations. IMHO the new creation seems to dovetail somewhat with the old page's sources, events, and personalities. But so far, there's a general consensus among other content-area editors this material has no place in pagespace (yet, if at all). The page creator's "gaming" behavior in recreating the same basic pagespace without violating specific prohibitions, seems by itself a behavioral issue, and several times repeated.  BusterD ( talk ) 16:50, 4 June 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: delete