Battle of Manakpur: Southasianhistorian8 ( talk ) 20:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions .  Southasianhistorian8 ( talk ) 23:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Source are fairly reliable and more sources can be added.  CanadianSingh1469 ( talk ) 21:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Can you elaborate on the source issues?  We can amend these.  Usingh0663 ( talk ) 03:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 150.129.164.94 ( talk ) 14:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Most of the issues that you have provided can be solved by editing the page with more reliable sources or removing info that can't be verified.  142.186.156.55 ( talk ) 22:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Striked as a suspicious new IP vote; reasonable in my opinion as sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry is rampant in this area of Wikipedia.  If this was done in err, an uninvolved editor in good standing or an admin should revert and unstrike.  Southasianhistorian8 ( talk ) 00:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Suthasianhistorian8 that was my ip account.I accidentally logged out while casting my vote.  Twarikh e Khalsa ( talk ) 02:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Puffy language and there are no sources discussing this "battle".  I can't find anything discussing this event in RS.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 03:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Encounter would be a better word since that is what most sources cited say.  CanadianSingh1469 ( talk ) 04:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Same article with different name -> Operation Mand & Battle of Manakpur is not a WP:COMMONNAME title...  You won't find RS with this title.  150.129.164.94 ( talk ) 14:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Operation Mand can be found.  Check all the sources.  A Minister of Punjab gave an entire interview about Operation Mand.  CanadianSingh1469 ( talk ) 14:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was trying to say, This is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Operation Mand .  This cannot be counted as a WP:SPINOFF .  150.129.164.94 ( talk ) 17:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Battle of Manakpur has no connection to Operation Mand except for Brahma being involved.  CanadianSingh1469 ( talk ) 18:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Suthasianhistorian8 Why aren’t you striking this as you did ones that were in favour of keeping it?  Seems a little hypocritical to me.  You said, ” suspicious new IP vote; reasonable in my opinion as sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry is rampant in this area of Wikipedia. ” Does this one now apply to that logic?  CanadianSingh1469 ( talk ) 23:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The 150* IP has been active since at least April [36] - [37] - [38] , but who knows for certain how long they've been contributing here? - [39] .  If you still feel apprehensive about their vote, you're free to strike their comment and let an admin or an uninvolved editor decide if their vote ought to stand as I did.  Southasianhistorian8 ( talk ) 05:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military .  Shellwood ( talk ) 10:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:GNG .  I find it impossible to believe that 25-30 people could have killed 2,000 police.  Mztourist ( talk ) 04:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have fixed that.  It said Brahma had 5 groups of 25-30, so I have changed it to 125-150.  CanadianSingh1469 ( talk ) 04:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 15:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep - It might be possible to salvage this article (emphasis on 'might').  The WP:RSs cited don't seem call it the "Battle of Manakpur" and the article as a whole is hagiographical in both tone and content.  I also share Mztourist 's scepticism of the claims made in it -- 150 people fighting their way through twenty- thousand police and killing 2k of them?  In 1986 ?  That would have headlined every international news source, not be buried on page 125 of a defence review article.  On the other hand, it's only two weeks old, there are a half-dozen editors working on it, and there is no urgency to kill that effort.  A new title drawn directly from the sources and a rewrite (with explicit, direct quotes on the numbers for both sides) could add value to Wikipedia.  On the other hand, come back in a few months and if it's not a solid article, I'll have no trouble ! voting to get rid of it.  Last1in ( talk ) 13:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong delete : Non-notable war incident.  I looked at the sources and none of them discussing the subject of this article, there is no mention of casualities as stated in the article and there is no evidence if this war ever happend.  A Google search for the term "Battle of Manakpur" yield just 11 results and one of them is a Reddit post created by the author of this article.  Fails WP:GNG 1.23.251.175 ( talk ) 18:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC) — 1.23.251.175 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  (striked as possible double-vote, user can clarify if it is or isn't)  Southasianhistorian8 ( talk ) 00:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please note that this looks like a copy of Operation Mand created by the user and the notability of that article is also questionable so I request user @ Suthasianhistorian8 : to review that article too and nominate it for deletion.  Also, all other articles created by user CanadianSingh1469 should be reviewed as they are all biased and based on original research.  1.23.251.175 ( talk ) 18:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You are the second IP editor from the same city to suggest that this is a copy of Operation Mand , but it clearly isn't.  Rather, this is a child article of that page.  The content is different and Operation Mand states that Avtar Singh Brahma ... would defeat security forces in the Battle of Manakpur.  There is a very good question as to whether this is a notable subject or not, independently notable for its own page, but this is clearly not just a content fork.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 19:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] IP, If this is a double-vote, please do strike your comment as such.  Thanks.  Southasianhistorian8 ( talk ) 23:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] IP is obviously the same as the one that voted previously.  @ Suthasianhistorian8 Can you strike this?  I am not sure how to.  CanadianSingh1469 ( talk ) 23:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have undone your strike.  Although I share your concern that we have two similar ! votes from the same location, we should not be striking ! votes unless they are shown to be sock puppets, for which a sock puppet investigation would be required (and these are not typically possible for IPs).  It is possible that two IPs from that location would be commenting here, considering the subject (but odd that they both make the same incorrect point).  However I have already marked the edit for the attention of the closer, see WP:SPA .  This will bring the closer's attention to the concerns here.  In any case, deletion discussions are not a vote, and a page may be kept even if deletes outnumber keeps.  It will depend on the arguments made.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 07:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - having wandered in here a couple of days ago, I have been wondering whether to comment on this AfD.  As it is relisted, I would like to cast a ! vote, but I have a few concerns.  On the leaning delete side of things, I cannot find any references at all that make the case that that such a battle existed.  The article appears to describe a skirmish, and in fairly uncritical terms.  It is referenced to (Singh, 2002), that is Violence in Political Discourse but I have no access to this book, so I cannot see what the book says about the subject.  A page number of 205 is given.  If someone has access to that, could they quote the relevant text, so we can evaluate what it says about this incident?  Yet while I am leaning delete on the lack of sourcing, I am also concerned by some of the delete arguments being made here.  The nom.  merely states there are source reliability and verification issues, but does not expand.  What are the policy reasons for delete here?  We also have two IPs (from the same city) suggesting this is a content fork, of another page, but it is not.  The only policy reason I see for deletion is if there are no suitable sources for this.  Those wishing to sway towards keep would do well to present any additional secondary sources here.  They don't have to be in the article - they just have to be shown to exist.  In the absence of any evidence of sources this would be a delete .  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 19:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Delete - per

Discussion outcome: delete