This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Punjab. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Punjab|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Punjab. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Asia.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
An article about a battle at an Indian village in 1971, that is lacking any WP:SIGCOV in third-party, reliable, secondary sources, despite there being a plethora books focusing on the parent Indo-Pakistani war of 1971. The article currently only cites the scarce works of the Pakistani junior commanders, who fought the battle at the time and wrote memoirs and articles in the Pakistani fora about it, and these are neither reliable nor suffice for establishing the noteworthiness of the subject for a standalone existence here. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The battle resulted in the awarding of several gallantry distinctions on both sides. From Pakistan, personnel received 5 Sitara-e-Jurat (the third-highest gallantry award), 6 Tamgha-e-Jurat (the fourth-highest gallantry award), and one Imtiazi Sanad (Mentioned in Dispatches). From India, awards included 8 Maha Vir Chakra (the second-highest gallantry award) and 18 Vir Chakra (the third-highest gallantry award).
It is important to note that battles are typically fought and led at the level of junior officers; one would not expect a flag officer like three-star generals or brigadiers to personally lead them. (However, the battle was directly fought by a Brigadier, and a Maj Gen was directly involved in the battle). The examples cited below also demonstrate this pattern :
Additionally, the battle has been in the national news of the countries which engaged in the warfare. For example - [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] and so on. The battle has been mentioned in detail in the sources mentioned above
The battle has been mentioned in numerous books as well, such as
India's war since independence : Defence of the Western Front by Maj. Gen. Sukhwant Singh
Against all Odds : The Pakistan Air Force in the 1971 Indo-Pakistan War by Kaiser Tufail
An Atlas of the 1971 Indo-Pakistan War : The Creation of Bangladesh by John. H Gill
Pakistan's Crisis in Leadership by Fazal Muqeen
The present condition of the article might be poor, but I assure I will improve the condition by adding additional citations.
Tumblr is user generated. Bol news article is written by Pakistani military officials. Tribune is an opinion piece. Dawn article is about a review of a book written by a Pakistani military officer. These sources are not reliable for this battle. Shankargb (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The references of the four books mentioned above contains documented history, those can be used as reliable sources.
I'm currently reading the books, I'll add the citations today or tomorrow with cross checking the information with several sources.
Also, for your kind information, books written by army personnel are often considered as a good source, only if the information matches with another source — for this case it would. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 03:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lt.gen.zephyr, which reliable source says that this relatively obscure battle resulted in "8 Maha Vir Chakra and 18 Vir Chakra" for India, or are you making it all up by yourself? Additionally, getting a "third-highest gallantry award" or "Mentioned in Dispatches" may be a grounds for notability for the person getting the honour, but it is by no means a ground for notability of the battle itself. People fighting terrorists in Kashmir get these recognitions all the time but we don't go on writing about every other encounter.. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 07:36, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't found a source about the MVC or VrC, I cited that as it was written there, though I have added a source about Pakistani awards, and hopefully you are educated enough to know the difference between encounter and a battle. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 07:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lt.gen.zephyr If you don't have sources for, hell your very premise for why you wish to keep this subject as a standalone article, you should desist from peddling these unverifiable details, which may mislead others into forming an inaccurate impression about the subject. Hundreds of battles are fought in a war, but, likewise, we don't indiscrimately write about every single one, only the notable ones. You wish to 'keep' this article because the battle allegedly resulted in gallantry awards and MiDs for soldiers and yet, that too you cannot attest with reliable sources. I don't see merit in your !keep. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 08:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the source for Pakistani awards. I'm presently working to improve the condition of the battle part, as I've already polished the article's ORBAT, casualties and aftermath version. If I find a suitable source for the claim of Indian awards to stand, I'll add it otherwise I wont. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 17:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These sources you adduce are unfortunately exactly emblematic of what ails this article and why it is up for deletion here. Ahmed's The battle of Hussainiwala and Qaiser-i-Hind: the 1971 war is nothing but a memoir he wrote to relay his personal experiences from this very battle in which he claims to have commanded his Pakistani unit. For our purposes, this source is clearly unfit for statements of facts, much less interpretative or analytical claims concerning this subject. It may only be considered reliable for his own opinions, subject to our policies, period. While your second source seems to offer nothing more than a passing mention about this subject. The policy is clear that it requires WP:SIGCOV in "reliable sources independent of the subject", and we cannot have it go for a toss just to accommodate obscure subjects with no significance or claims to notability into our encyclopedia. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 07:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The battle of Hussainiwala and Qaiser-i-Hind: the 1971 war is not a reliable source here because the author was "a Commanding Officer at the time".[8]
The battle of Hussainiwala and Qaiser-i-Hind: the 1971 war is not a reliable source here because the author was "a Commanding Officer at the time".[9]
Comment : I have recently made a series of updates to improve the article, and for the sake of clarity and transparency I am outlining them below:
Territorial changes were updated in line with WP:NPOV to ensure the section remains balanced and neutral.
Strength and casualty figures were removed from the infobox as they were unsourced, fails verification under WP:V.
Ranks of the officers who had taken part in the warfare have been corrected, with citations provided from reliable sources.
ORBAT for both India and Pakistan has been revised using official military histories and neutral references such as An Atlas of the 1971 India–Pakistan War: The Creation of Bangladesh and others (with page numbers cited for transparency).
Details of the 4 December operations have been expanded with references from both an Indian general and a Pakistani Air Force officer. Since both sources corroborate one another, I felt this was a valuable addition.
Casualty figures have been updated with references from national news and the regimental history of 15 Punjab. I will try to source and add Pakistani casualty figures.
Awards and decorations : Pakistani recipients have been cited from reliable sources, while unsourced information on Indian recipients was removed until proper references can be traced and used.
I have aimed throughout to maintain neutrality, improve sourcing, and enhance the article’s overall quality. If any of the sources I have used are considered unsuitable, please raise the concern here or on the talk page. I am open to replacing or improving them where needed.
I plan to continue working on the remaining sections in the coming days, and I welcome constructive input so we can collaboratively ensure the article reflects reliable, well-sourced, and balanced information. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 18:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has significant coverage in the sources I've used. I've mentioned in detailed about them in the above comment. You may recheck the sources and read before commenting. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 08:14, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Having gone through the entire discussion above, I am not finding any coverage from the WP:RS that is not connected with the subject. Excelse (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
