Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gurkha–Sikh War


 * 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 keep. With the only delete !vote being changed to a keep, this is a solid keep closure. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 11:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Gurkha–Sikh War

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article had two sources, one of which has failed verification. The other is a print source that is not accessible online. I can't find any reference to a Gorkha-Sikh war in 1809 online. Finally, the article was created by a sock and the content is primarily what they added. Either the content is made up or a small skirmish has been elevated into a "war". regentspark (comment) 21:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - The alternate spelling, Gorkha, brings up a lot of information: [this government website], [and this one], [this article], and [a bunch of books covering the topic].  Orville1974  (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm. The alternative spelling does bring up additional sources. But, none of them have more than a couple of lines on the event (a skirmish, a cutting off of supply lines). Does it behove us to elevate this to a "war" or even to have an entire article on something that merely merits a footnote in historical texts? At best, this should be relegated to the same status, a couple of lines, in some other article. --regentspark (comment) 14:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I found the same sources as Orville1974 and they are easily sufficient to support this article. Mccapra (talk) 05:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge . It is not made up. But war is probably a strong word for it. (So far as I know (WP:OR alert), Nepal was aggressively annexing neighbouring territories. When the campaign reached Kangra (sufficiently close to the Sikhs), the invaded sought help from the Sikh and the Gurkhas were thoroughly defeated in battle and pushed back, ending the Nepalese expansion westward. It was nowhere near as big a deal as the article suggests. It was a battle between two forces representing their respective countries, but neither had any enmity against each other or intention to engage in a long conflict.) I don't think the whole affair deserves more than a section in the pages about History of Nepal, Unification of Nepal and Kangra such as | the last one already has.Usedtobecool (talk) 05:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The "passing" nature of the mentions of the conflict in all of the sources (as a context to a broader point like "what-if" Sikhs and Gurkhas had united against the EICo. instead, or as a part of a complete history of Kangra or Himachal pradesh) supports my view that the conflict deserves a section each in quite a few wikipedia articles but no more . Usedtobecool (talk) 06:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Numerous sources cover the conflict with at least a page or so; that's enough depth to write a decent article.. Usedtobecool thinks this does not count as a war. A conflict that included a four-year siege certainly sounds like a war to me, and I wonder what Usedtobecool's criteria are for counting something as a war.  It certainly fits the definition of war given in Wikipedia's article: War is a state of armed conflict between states...  In any case, Usedtobecool's argument is a rationale for rename, not for delete. SpinningSpark</b> 18:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong opinion on the technicality. The title implies war between empires, while the truth is two empires were squabbling over a small piece of land that they both wanted; but had no more enmity/conflict/whatever between them in any other way. It was Sikh's siege of Kangra to win it from the Gurkhas who'd beaten them in invading it. Other than that, they hardly ever needed to acknowledge each other's existence. That's why I don't think it counts as war in the way that the title implies. It's akin to clicking the article titled Dutch-Portuguese war and finding out that the Dutch won a small asian island from the Portuguese by attacking a single fort and expelling the Portuguese. I would love to see some good historical documents referring to the conflict as "Gurkha-Sikh war". I would change my vote in that case. Usedtobecool (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's on pp. 42–43 of Thapa Politics in Nepal. If kept, I will add a bit from this source. —Srnec (talk) 00:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Changed from "delete or merge" that I struck-through myself, above. It seems there's sufficient sources and detail to build a full-fledged page after all. I still think the title is misleading, but can't come up with a better suggestion at the time.If and when I do, I could always propose a move. So, that's a non-issue. Usedtobecool (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.