Conquest of Hadoti: Clearly it fails SIGCOV, not enough coverage to warrant a standalone article.  Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 10:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , History , Military ,  and Rajasthan .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I found this , which has a whole page dedicated to the subject at page 122.  Also search on Google Scholar locates "Sharma, R.K., 1985. MILITARY SYSTEM OF THE KOTA STATE (C-1250 to 1947 AD). Скорина и скориниана, 13, p.65."  I can't view the second one so I can't get any comment on how much content is devoted to the subject.  Tar nis hed Path talk 11:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ TarnishedPath that is the whole different event around 1436.  The whole page except the last para deals with the conquest of Hadoti by Rana Kumbha, It's the only last para of 4 lines which covers relevant content: The political situation soon changed, when Mahmud Khilji came to throne in Malwa, He had undertaken several expeditions to bring Hadoti under his sphere of influence.  Kumbha adopted a successful policy to give sufficient support to the Hadas against the invasions of the Sultan of Malwa.  And that too doesn't describe the outcome.  As I said it fails SIGCOV and it's just a meagre part of a different event.  Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 13:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You're making an argument for updating the article, not deleting it.  Tar nis hed Path talk 13:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No I'm not.  What I meant is that the given source is completely unrelated to this event which happened in 1459 not 1436 per above given source.  Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 15:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , It is clearly a POV article focusing on establishing the dominance of the Malwa Sultanate over the Kingdom of Mewar .  The article does not have proper detail of events, and the WP:RS does not have enough mentioning of events like how the seige went and how the fort was conquered.  Rawn3012 ( talk ) 11:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please describe how the article fails NPOV.  Tar nis hed Path talk 14:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , concerns that don't raise to the level of HOAX but seriously concerning stuff in regards to notability, NPOV, and wikipuffery that mean this article is not encyclopedic.  microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 20:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Malinaccier ( talk ) 01:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per MicrobiologyMarcus.  Mccapra ( talk ) 06:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment while I know it is not a proper argument for deletion , I would note there's an SPI that relates to the major contributor of the article, such that I don't know if this article would reach a conservative reading of the threshold of WP:G5 but relates to my concerns above.  microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 14:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This article fails WP:GNG [53] .  It has 2-3 lines of coverage from the sources which makes it unsuitable for having a stand-alone article (as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information [54] ) Mohammad Umar Ali ( talk ) 11:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you please specify which article this material is already covered in, to support your argument that this is unsuitable for a stand-alone article.  Tar nis hed Path talk 15:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I m saying that 2-3 lines of unclear information is not suitable for a standalone article like this one!  Mohammad Umar Ali ( talk ) 16:31, 22 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