Battle of Qarawal: The article Battle of Qarawal is completely problematic which relies on only one source which basically is a translation of a contemporary source.  Even the title of the article is incorrect as Qarawal is not a location but a strong contingent as mentioned in the source of the article itself.  Also there are reliable sources by accredited historians that claim that the battle ended with both parties retiring at nightfall.  Therefore, there was no victory for either party.  Rather the battle was inconclusive.  Javerine ( talk ) 01:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] User @ Javerine has went on a spin-off argument from the main deletion page request for his page at [20] , Please read there for whoever handles this deletion request.  Noorullah ( talk ) 01:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Both sources do not mention what User Javerine is trying to potray with his page of Battle of Lahore (1764) , further explained on the talk page of the Battle of Lahore itself, [21] and the deletion request I put up for it.  Noorullah ( talk ) 01:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military .  Shellwood ( talk ) 01:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] MISTAKES ABOUT THIS ARTICLE MISTAKE 1: The source on the article Battle of Qarawal , clearly states that "When the army went to the battle-field, their camps, kitchens, families and servants known as Bahir-o~Bungah .were left in charge of a strong contingent, which was called Qarawal. * Jang Namah, 83."  This is mention at the bottom on page number 201 [22] .  MISTAKE 2: The article is strictly is based on one source which is basically a translation of contemporary source Jang Namah, written by Nur Muhammad who was brought along with his masters to record his master's campaign.  And historian have called his source, though valuable, but bias, prejuidice, discriminatory, very one-sided and based on personal observation.  MISTAKE 3: Noorullah keeps repeating that the reliable sources on my article by accredited historians do not claim that "The battle ended with both parties retired at nightfall. Here are the source links for anyone to verify: Page 216 [23] by historian Hari Ram Gupta and here is another source, Page 299 [24] by historian Ganda Singh (historian) . So based on all above information, article Battle of Qarawal is completely problematic and errors, including the outcome of the battle, which I have clearly stated as "Inconclusive" on Battle of Lahore (1764) . User Noorullah clearly didn't study the sources on his article Battle of Qarawal and didn't make effort to study the sources on my article either. Javerine ( talk ) 02:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry but your point about the "Jang Namah" being an unreliable contemporary source also applies to every source you just listed? It is within the bottom of all the books you just posted that they follow the Jang Namah. As you can see with the following: [25] [26] Also the same account is of Hari Singh Nawla's writing, though you are saying it as if it was another source, when it was the same writer. Noorullah ( talk ) 02:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you are not understading. Its what the historians analyze that is considered reliable by studying such contemporary sources. Jang Namah is considered valuable as it sheds light on events but you can see that historians when giving their own analysis, ignore the brava and prejudice observations, of a source, serving the master. Such as historian Ganda Singh said, "lts true that the Jang Nama, presents only one side piccture and that too from a bigoted crusader’s angle of vision.  But that does not detract much from its historical value.  In spite of his strong prejudice against the Sikhs, whom he remembers in no better words than dogs, dogs of hell, accursed infidels, unclean idolaters, fire-worshippers, etc., his description of the character of the Sikhs of the eighteenth century is invaluable to the students of history.  And its value is immeasurably enhanced when we know that it is from the pen of one of their worst enemies, who prayed to God and appealed to the crusaders to destroy them root and branch.  In short, the book has a great significance as a comtemporary historical document for the history of Ahmad Shah and the Sikhs". So that we is why instead of directly drawing from contemporary source, we have to use secondary sources written by historians who based their findings, study and analysis of such contemporary sources to draw conclusion. Javerine ( talk ) 02:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Where does this "quote" come from? You have completely made this quote without any citation? If you are also jumping between arguments about the Jang Nama.. calling it firstly "one-sided" and implying that it could not be trusted, then to now it could be because of its historical value? Furthermore.. in those other sources it was just the Jang Nama cited? So how does that prove anything other then the contemporary source was used? The other part of Ram Gupta's source was a 1908 British Gazetter. Regardless, I am not gonna respond further and let whoever handles the deletion requests to deal with this. Noorullah ( talk ) 02:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why aren't you trying to make an effort as I already provided the link before. Historian Ganda Singh's opinion on Jang Namah is on page 420 [27] . Yes its better for others to make decisions. Javerine ( talk ) 02:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You did not provide the citation or link to that page whatsoever during the course of this dispute. Noorullah ( talk ) 02:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I provided the link before in the discussion with Ganda Singh's book. All you had to do was run a search. Javerine ( talk ) 02:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "Run a search", for what? That's not the purpose of the argument, your supposed to back up what your saying with citations. Noorullah ( talk ) 02:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Noticed something very sneaky while the above discussion was going on. So Noorullah copied the source from article written by me Battle of Lahore (1764) and falsely attributed it on the article written by him Battle of Qarawal where it states that Qarawal is a location and where it states that "As the rest of the Durrani reinforcements came into battle, The Sikhs were routed from the battlefield, and fled from the battle at night. " Here is the change he made [28] and here [29] , when its clearly mentioned in the source that "It was a bitter contest and came to close only by nightfall". Here is for everyone to verify the source [30] . Also no where does the source mention Qarawal as a location, so why falsely attribute the source during this above discussion. I rest my case. Javerine ( talk ) 04:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn't "copy the source", you complained about there not being enough sources on the page of Battle of Qarawal , as a result I added Singh's citations in the appropriate areas, including the area where it said about a nightfall. The former was Ram Gupta's.. and then Singh's SFN for the battle concluding at nightfall. I'm not sure why you are pretending this is something sneaky to slip in? It says "A Place Near Lahore" in the article, while Ram Gupta mentions reinforcements were sent to Qarawal, how is this falsely attributing? You are meant to assume good faith rather then put out accusations to such matters. Noorullah ( talk ) 04:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And so I quote "As the rest of the Durrani reinforcements came into battle, The Sikhs were routed from the battlefield, and fled from the battle at night. " The then cited sources were Ram Gupta and Singh. Noorullah ( talk ) 04:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This is just an observation but this AFD discussion has only existed for a couple of hours and it's already preoccupied with you two bickering. The more you argue with each other, the less likely that other editors will want to participate in this discussion. You need to offer your opinion and then step away and let other editors look over the content and sources and weigh in with their opinions. You need to make space for other participants. If this "discussion" just becomes you two talking to each other, it's likely to close with no decision being made at all. So think of what your goal is and act accordingly. L iz Read! Talk! 05:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd redirect to the 1764 battle as mentioned. No comment on the above "discussion", but please keep it related to the AfD being reviewed.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment since both articles don't need duplicate discussions, I have commented at Battle of Lahore (1764) .  // Timothy :: talk 13:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Needs more comments regarding merging (and if so to what?), redirecting, or simply deleting.  Same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Lahore (1764) .  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Onel 5969 TT me 22:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: As per prior relisting comment.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:35, 31 March 2023 (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