Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Pratapgarh


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was   Speedy Keep - Proceural close - "No sources" isn't a valid reason for deletion, Clearly WP:BEFORE hasn't been followed. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 21:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Pratapgarh

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No sources FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 1.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 18:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep: The article has a list of 6 book sources, so the two word nomination is incorrect. In addition, a WP:BEFORE check would locate more. AllyD (talk) 06:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: No Checkable / Verifiable sources. This makes edit warring to easy between contesting editors, therefore expending editors time when IP editors oppose each others interpretations. Richard Harvey (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems to have occurred, ergo is probably notable. We can't expect as many sources for such battles as we would have for battles involving Western European or North American countries. There seems to be some misapprehension that only online sources are valid, which is certainly not true. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep -- The article gives SIX sources. My guess is that reliable primary sources lie behind these.  They may not be Internet-accessible, but that does not mean they are not WP:RS.   I know that they are not in-line referneces, but that is nmot a ground for deletion.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep-- This is very Important Article and give very important information with numbers. This article must stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahendra.Kadam20 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.