Gauda–Gupta War: If we include the mutual conflicts between the Guptas and Gaudas in the article's scope, it becomes a result of original research and the synthesis of multiple conflicts.  The conflicts involving Ishanavarman, Jivitagupta I, and Gopachandra are mentioned, but figures such as Kumaragupta III, Dharmaditya, and Samacharadeva are not addressed in the War section , but in the infobox.  Upon reviewing the sources, authors are uncertain about the statements, with a weak consensus.  In essence, the article combines non-notable military conflicts, cited by low-quality sources, involving different kingdoms—the Maukhari dynasty and the Later Gupta dynasty —against the Gauda kingdom , and labels it as the "Gauda—Gupta War".  It adds minor conflicts to create the impression of significance, which is not justified.  The article fails to meet GNG and contains original research.  There are significant issues to address, AFD is limiting the discourse.  Imperial [AFCND] 13:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , Bangladesh ,  and India .  Imperial [AFCND] 13:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep @ ImperialAficionado There's no synthesis and OR, every cited source comes to the conclusion that Maukharis and later Guptas fought against Gaudas on behalf of the Gupta emperor.  It's quite likely that the war of Ishanavarman against the Gaudas whom he had forced to take shelter on the sea shore and the victory of Jivitagupta I over the enemies who stood on the sea-shore, refer to the expeditions launched by the Maukharis and the Later Guptas, separately or jointly, against the kings of Bengal discussed above who had declared their independence of the empire and had assumed the imperial title.  Probably, the Maukhari and the Later Gupta rulers undertook these campaigns in the name of the Gupta emperor who was their nominal overlord, though their success increased their own power, and not of the emperor.  From Goyal (1967) .  The people of Gauda (W. Bengal) also achieved prominence, and a Maukhari chief claims to have defeated them.  The Later Guptas also fought against some enemies who lived on the sea-shore.  The reference in both cases may be to the kings of Bengal mentioned above, and the military campaigns of the Maukharis and the Later Guptas might have been undertaken, jointly or severally, on behalf of the Gupta emperor, their nominal overlord.  Majumdar (1970) .  Quoting these two should be enough.  The other sources are right there, you should have thoroughly verified it before proposing AFD for this article.  According to nom it's cited with low quality sources seriously?  As far as I know the works of S.R. Goyal, R.C. Majumdar, K.K Dasgupta, H.K Barpujari and others are qualitatively reliable.  If nom has any doubt for the cited sources then they should verify those at RSN.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonharojjashi ( talk • contribs ) @ Jonharojjashi , cited with low quality sources is referring my earlier statement in the proposal authors are uncertain about the statements, with a weak consensus , take the time to read the whole proposal reason.  The weakness of the statements from the sources are evident from the above quotes, presented by yourself above.  It's quite likely that ...  Probably , the Maukhari and the Later Gupta rulers un... from Goyal and The reference in both cases may be to the kings of Bengal mentioned above...and the Later Guptas might have been undertaken , jointly or from Majumdar.  Keeping this weak statements aside, surprisingly I couldn't find any latest records about the event(s). -- Imperial [AFCND] 17:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If that's the issue then the article body should reflect the sources whether they have "weak consensus" or not. And that is what I have done in The War section. From what I have seen, many articles are made after being based on even less consensus, like Sasanian–Kushan Wars , you should also see my question regarding this at the help desk [55] , and here the sources do say "possibly" so I can do the same in Infobox and article body (basically I'm reflecting what the sources say). Again I don't get what the problem is, just because sources hold weak consensus thus they are of low quality ? And you didn't answer where does it contains synthesis and OR. Looks like you didn't even read the article and verify it with the cited sources and stuck to the possilikely words. -- Jonharojjashi ( talk ) 16:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Dear.  That's why I said AFD is limiting the discourse , I need a bigger space to expose the whole mess within the article.  And no need to drag Sasanian–Kushan Wars here.  Take that to the respective talk section if you have any problem with it.  Imperial [AFCND] 17:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No that should not be a reason, AFD is what exactly for highlighting all the cons of the article, there's no limiting discourse.  Just say you can't show where this article contains synthesis , OR and weak sources .  You're free to expose any drawbacks of this page.  There's no need to be in the grey area.  I'd assume that you're either procrastinating or failing to prove your points.  I'm not dragging Sasanian–Kushan Wars here instead, I cleared your doubts regarding "weak consensus" through it.  Don't just throw away it by saying no need to drag .  For other voters : Note that there's an AFD discussion going on their own page [56] and also note that the nom hasn't clearly provided anything to show this article holds any OR, synthesis and weak sources.  Jonharojjashi ( talk ) 01:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Another WP:SYNTH mess.  -- HistoryofIran ( talk ) 19:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Two reliable sources that I can verify the content on the page are from historians R. C. Majumdar and K.K. Dasgupta.  Some other sources though are from historians like Sailendra Nath Sen but I can not verify them.  Taking the two reliable sources that help with verification, I feel this page passes the general notability guidelines.  RangersRus ( talk ) 13:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Delete or keep?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  09:58, 18 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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus