Battle of Lahore (1764): See [2] Sources point to this battle being at Qarawal, and I had already made a page for the Battle of Qarawal .  The infobox also has incorrect information saying that it was inconclusive, and that both the Sikhs and Afghans withdrew, to which, one of the main cited sources of the article says that the Sikhs were routed, and affirmed an Afghan victory, see here: [3] Noorullah ( talk ) 23:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military .  Shellwood ( talk ) 00:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For some reason, user @ Javerine attempted to log a deletion request on the Battle of Qarawal itself without responding to anything here, or mentioned on the former talk page.  (They also did not attempt to discuss it on the talk page either, or even open a deletion discussion).  See here: [4] Noorullah ( talk ) 01:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] SHouldn't you have discussed the matter before submitting my article for deletion without even properly studying the sources?  Why didn't you have discussion in the first place before submitting my article for deletion?  You article is Battle of Qarawal is clearly problematic, even the title itself.  Javerine ( talk ) 01:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I. .did study the sources, I pointed it out to you in the talk page of the article you created, I linked it multiple times and even said what the issue was here.  So I am not sure why you are accusing me of not pointing that out.  You saying "the article is clearly problematic" does not refute any of the things said, especially with whats said in the source which you still for some reason tried to summarize it as "inconclusive", when the source clearly stated that the Sikh forces were routed.  I listed it for deletion because it is effectively the exact same page as Battle of Qarawal , except the page you created pushes forward that the battle was inconclusive, which is contradicted by the sources.  Noorullah ( talk ) 01:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I will come back to the problems with your article.  Give me few mins.  Javerine ( talk ) 01:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would like to furthermore add the second source for Singh does not mention that the Afghans withdrew as of nightfall either?  And instead leaves the results vague and just after leads to Ahmad Shah Durrani congratulating Nasir Khan and warning him to stay away from frontline of battle.  This, meaning you completely made up the inconclusive remark.  As none of the sources you had in the article mentions the Afghans withdrawing, and only Ram Gupta's mentions that the Sikhs were routed.  [5] (Singh's account on the battle, is vague and doesn't mention the Afghans withdrawing) [6] (Ram Gupta's account, mentions the Sikhs being routed) Alongside this, the "battle" according to Singh isn't even at Lahore itself, which you named the article.  The source says "a battle near Lahore" [7] Noorullah ( talk ) 01:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So with this, the main two sources on the article clearly don't allign with what the page is attempting to potray.  The battle can clearly be seen as not being inconclusive, but rather, an Afghan victory as the Sikhs were routed (See Ram Gupta's source).  Noorullah ( talk ) 01:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This article Battle of Lahore (1764) is completely reliable compared to Battle of Qarawal which has issues starting with the title itself as Qarawal is not even a location.  I will defend article Battle of Lahore (1764) based on this mistakes on Battle of Qarawal .  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 [8] .  MISTAKE 2: The article is strictly is based on one source which is basically a translation of various contemporary sources such as 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 [9] by historian Hari Ram Gupta and here is another source, Page 299 [10] 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. Also according to Noorullah, to discredit my article by the reliable source by historians, he states that "Historians make mistakes", [11] . A pointless reason. Javerine ( talk ) 02:08, 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: [12] [13] 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 ) 02:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you are not understanding. 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 ) 02:31, 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 [14] . 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 ) 02:52, 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 [15] and here [16] , 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 [17] . 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 ) 04:17, 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 ) 04:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : There are numerous problems in both articles.  I'm actually inclined to delete both since they are both so biased; the authors that do not have the experience to write articles about controversial subjects.  Both authors are obviously POV pushing for their chosen side.  That these articles were created at the same time (~40mins) shows a battleground mentality the closing admin should note for AE subject.  @ Noorullah and Javerine : can you list the best two sources (per WP:RS, WP:V) that show what you believe the name of the article should be?  No need to explain, I can read and just need the reference.  Battleground is definetly a part of this so there is no need to respond to the other parties two sources.  I intensely hate walls of text and POV refbombing.  // Timothy :: talk 13:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Noorullah, your two sources are: Javerine, your two sources are: Page 299 [18] by historian Ganda Singh (historian) and Page 216 [19] by historian Hari Ram Gupta .  Javerine ( talk ) 15:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] User:TimothyBlue , replied with two sources you asked for.  Javerine ( talk ) 15:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat / contributions 05:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge (with the usual redirect).   The consensus above seems to be that the two battles are one and the same.   If so, there should be a single article on it.   I know nothing of the subject, but an AFD is not the right place for WP editors to seek to resolve conflicts as to precisely what happened.   That is a matter to be resolved by reference to published historical works (being RS).  Peterkingiron ( talk ) 14:38, 18 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.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Onel 5969 TT me 22:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: As per prior relist comment.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment TimothyBlue thank you for intervening.  I agree that it sounds like we are talking about two versions of the same battle as Peterkingiron noted.  I suggest Dispute Resolution, or failing that that the two editors work on one disputed item at a time starting with the name of the battle.  That is going to be a DUE weight question where the NPOV.board could be helpful.  Keep both articles for now, until this is resolved.  Draftify if necessary, then merge Elinruby ( talk ) 10:33, 2 April 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