Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Present day descendants of the defeated Maratha Warriors of the Battle of Panipat (1761)


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Present day descendants of the defeated Maratha Warriors of the Battle of Panipat (1761)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

By title alone you can think that the article is WP:POV, it is a POV article with original research. There are some speculations and some possibilities but sources are not reliable enough to trust these claims per WP:NOTNEWS. Even if we were to believe that there are descendants of the Maratha Warriors in Haryana, Balochistan, Afghanistan, what more explanation do we need? Having an article about this simple thing is simply too much. Capitals00 (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable, poorly sourced, unlikely to be better sourced. As noted on the talk page, individual articles on these communities will probably be a better approach provided reliable sources can be found.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 15:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * delete Unsourced, OR, and possible POV violation?Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. Not shown to be notable and sources are poor. Kierzek (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.Icewhiz (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge without redirect. It does have sources about this group that seem to satisfy WP:V, but the current article uses them poorly and is full of WP:OR.  I think a severely cut-back description could go either in Maratha or Third battle of Panipat. The namespace itself is of no value, so no redirect.  Agricolae (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 08:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

UTC)
 * Delete This is not even remotely salvageable and the different titles are beyond imagination! I'm not going to give another list of acronyms that this fails, but it has to go at the earliest. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  11:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Just found this on net: What happened here in the previous deletion, Admins please check - . The new Article uses well known Major New paper Sources, These News organisations have Wikipedia articles on their own. There is a need to add in line references and the template has been added. - mrigthrishna (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom Nick-D (talk) 04:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * SpacemanSpiff is leaving threatning messages on my talk page as I created this stupid article as per him and trying to get some editors of generally related articles in interesting them to better it. trying to talk down to me about my contributions mrigthrishna (talk) 05:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've looked through the logs on your talk page to find evidence of threats. I do not see any, but rather see an editor who has warned you numerous times. To accuse someone of threatening you is a serious allegation. Please place a hyperlink to which message exactly that you think is threatening. Willard84 (talk) 06:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete The title of the page is ridiculously wordy, and there is literally only one reference on the entire article. Is this even a notable topic worthy of an article? I don't think so personally. I do appreciate the editor's apparent intent to contribute to WP, but this article doesn't meet basic standards. Willard84 (talk) 06:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- The article tells us absolutely nothing encyclopedic. I suspect it of being written to promote some kind of nationalist agenda.  It  relates to an event about 250 years ago.  That is about 1- generations back.  If every soldier had two children and so on generation by generation, each would have 1000 descendants in this generation.  With some 1000s present, we are potentially talking about millions of people.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly not 5 or 10 people but Millions of People, and when millions of people can relate to this ancestory then Wikipedia should have an article on it. I see no Editor helping or trying to attach in line references or bettering the article but just exercising their trigger finger. mrigthrishna (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and above. &mdash;  MB laze Lightning T 07:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject is non-notable. Sources don't look very reliable. POV issues galore.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:49, 13 September 2017 (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.