Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Banda Singh Bahadur


 * 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   merge to Banda Singh Bahadur. Merge away! SarahStierch (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Criticism of Banda Singh Bahadur

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The articile Banda Singh Bahadur already exists. This is an unreferenced article that could easily be incorporated in the main article. S H 10:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This article is purely referenced article and have sufficient data to become an independent article. The points of contention was removed as article was still in construction mode. Rather then marking it delete, put it on halt if you need detail lines and translation from sources. Even many lines are quoted from sources but these are simply ignored. Which references you need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.110.241.231 (talk) 10:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge to Banda Singh Bahadur. Much of this article consists only of quotations (so it borderlines on copyright vio) that should be summarized and added to the parent article. This article will give the criticism undue weight and is not sufficiently long enough to warrant a split. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The tone of article was tried to go like : Criticism of Muhammad, but one of contributor removed points of contentions and one of sources. Other then that more sources could be quoted with some contemporary and historians like Karam Singh who exposed this anti khalsa personality. If it could be merger then all points of contention should be mentioned with all sources given or quoted in at least references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.217.32 (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The article should be again put under construction, if Wikipedia required detail information on sources. Other then that points of contentions should not be removed, reinserting points of contention with sources. The Buddha Dal and Tat Khalsa have all points by critics. It will meet criteria of articles like Criticism of Christ or Criticism of Muhommad.
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)




 * Merge to Banda Singh Bahadur. We don't host "Criticism of X" articles just for the hell of it and certainly not when it basically amounts to giving prominence to sectarianism etc. If nothing else, as with dedicated "criticism" or "controversy" sections in main articles, they are POV magnets and tend to lead to distortion and imbalance. This article in its various forms has consisted mostly of long quotes from sources written 150 years or more ago and which thus are basically WP:PRIMARY commentaries that fall well below the standard that is proposed by WP:HISTRS. The gist of those quotes is constant, being mostly criticism for tactical decisions, womanising and for egotism. What we really need are paraphrases of secondary sources that discuss the issues & those seem to be hard to come by. Where they do exist, they should be incorporated into the prose of the main article, eg: a discussion of his surrender with 700 men at hand does not need to go in a "criticism" section but rather in a section discussing the military engagement itself or his military tactics in general. Frankly, without better sourcing there isn't anything much to merge at present but I'm going to do some more digging. - Sitush (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2013 (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.