Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Behgy: Difference between revisions

Battle of Behgy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Battle of Behgy does not meet WP:NOTABILITY and lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Gupta and Ganda Singh mention this engagement only in a brief paragraph, and D. K. Ghosh refers to it in a single sentence. There is insufficient in-depth coverage to establish the topic’s notability under Wikipedia’s content policies, and the article should be deleted. Heraklios 17:31, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Heraklios 17:31, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It would appear this topic has come to AfD before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Behgy (1766), but that attempt at an article was a copyvio created by a sock and was speedy deleted accordingly. (No opinion on the current article.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:45, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I reviewed the article that was created again but sounds very much inline with the content created by sockpuppet before. No source calls it “Battle of Behgy”. Sources actually say that Ahmad Shah reach Behgy unopposed. So the fight took place sometime after. All the sources have very much identical 2-3 sentences (as if they all got the information from same source) that this whole page has been created on. Ref bombing. No significant coverage and no claim in any source if this was a battle of Behgy. RangersRus (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Definitely not unopposed. There was a battle at Behgy. [1] (Page 237)/ Noorullah (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  No title with such battle and 2-3 sentences is not significant coverage for a standalone article. RangersRus (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Looking at the sources, there’s decent coverage in my eyes to warrant a page. Sources meet WP:RS so not an issue either. Noorullah (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]