Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Thane


 * 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. While a minority of editors arguing for keep asserted that the article's referencing already meets GNG, this was not accompanied by an identification of sources that support this assertion, and disputed by further participants !voting for deletion. signed,Rosguill talk 15:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Thane

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article fails WP:GNG. WP:SYNTH can be clearly seen from the section "background". There are sources contradicts the current result of the conflict and moreover, the article is very poorly notable. Can't see anywhere mentioned " Battle of Thane" in any of the WP:RS. Imperial [AFCND]  15:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Islam, India,  and Maharashtra. Skynxnex (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete yep seems to fail wp:n, with some iffy sources. Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete no WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete minor battle that was never called "Battle of Thane" by historians. Two unrelated results on Google Scholar  Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 19:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  20:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep The title is clearly a Wikipedia artifice and "Arab raid on Thane" would perhaps be a better title. Passes WP:GNG - ample sources. Some renown as the first Arab attack on India, so likely that readers will search for it. The issue then is whether the article is sufficient, and would ever be expanded if not. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * They are several other reasons behind this nomination. If we start to create seperate articles for each and every military conflicts, it would be a real mess. For this context, it is already present in Umayyad campaign in India. And how it passes GNG? I can barely see scattered single line in books. referring this topic. Another interesting thing I found is that the sources doesn't even mention the Rashidun Caliphate nor the name of commander (as per the reference of section "battle"). The user used WP:SYNTH there. Moreover, I found some other sources that contradicts the current result. So keeping this article will prompt other users to create similar poorly written articles. Imperial [AFCND]  01:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, it does WP:GNG. There seems to be a misunderstanding of WP:SYNTH. This is when you combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. That is not the case here. We know that 636 means the Rashidun Caliphate and we've all committed the names of the caliphs to memory. So it is just a matter of a reference missing. I note that neither lack of references in the article, nor WP:SYNTH, nor WP:OR for that matter are valid grounds for deletion. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  08:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * actually i have sources to add in it, if you all dont mind should i add them?? Shakib ul hassan (talk) 09:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem is not with the sources. It is about notability. If you have more than one reliable sources which deeply covers the "battle"/" raid", we can move with it. Add the sources and we can see if it is just some broken lines or an explained one. Imperial  [AFCND]  10:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't get anything for "Arab raid on Thane" either, so I'm not sure that's any better. What sources do you have that show a GNG pass? We should use whatever title they call it by. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep Agreed with User:Hawkeye7 this event holds its own historical importance and should be covered on wikipedia as it was one of the first Arab ventures to India so I have reframed the article as much as I could. If the article passes WP:HEY and WP:GNG (according to me it does) then the article should be kept as D or C class, also I would suggest to renaming the article to "Ummayad expedition of Thana" or "Ummayad invasion of Thana" for better understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonharojjashi (talk • contribs) 11:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * While talking about "notability", we should consider that there was zero Arab casualty during this conflict (can add citation if anyone needs). So it is clear that it was a mere skirmish.  Imperial  [AFCND]  11:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment See Umayyad campaigns in India which describes this event. Also as information: “[p. 220] In addition, historical evidence suggests that 'Uthman ibn Abi'l l-As al-Thaqafi (d. 55/675), the Governor of Bahrayn and 'Uman, sent a fleet to the coastal regions of Thanah (near Bombay) and Broach (in the Gulf of Cambay) via 'Uman under the command of his brother Haban ibn Abi'l l-As al-Thaqafi (d. ca. 45/65). But this naval expedition was sent without the permission of the reigning Caliph 'Umar, who, upon coming to know of it, forbade [p. 221] undertaking naval expeditions for the time being. The Governor of Bahrayn also sent one expedition to Debul, a port in Sindh, under his brother Mughirah ibn  Abi'l l-As al-Thaqafi (d. ca. 15/636). Nonetheless, according to Mubarakpuri, the purpose of these two expeditions was not territorial subjugation and annexation; rather, they were meant to prevent their rulers from helping the Persians against the Muslim armies.” A footnote cites Philip K. Hitti, The Origins of the Islamic State. New York: Columbia University Press, 1916 and a couple of other sources that might be relevant. A 1916 source should be available on line. From ANJUM, TANVIR. “The Emergence of Muslim Rule in India: Some Historical Disconnects and Missing Links.” Islamic Studies 46, no. 2 (2007): 217–40. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20839068. Donner60 (talk) 07:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: There seems to be too little information on the event with a general lack of sources. Many of the sources stating the result as disputed. With no reliable sources properly attributing the event (as many are disputed on what actually happened), or significant coverage, it fails WP:GNG. Noorullah (talk) 06:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: I'm not seeing the sigcov here either. If it's broadly known as the first military incursion of Arabs into India, I'd expect both better sourcing and better-contextualized coverage on a broader article. -- asilvering (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2024 (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.