Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Pichuna


 * 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. Or at least not delete; merging or renaming can be discussed on the article talk page.  Sandstein  17:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Pichuna

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article contains unsubstantiated and misquoting of facts present in the references. No Eminent historian talks about occurence of any such "Battle of Pichuna". Any small encounter that may or may not have happened cannot be extrapolated to a battle — Preceding unsigned comment added by RS6784 (talk • contribs) 17:32, November 1, 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Discussion page was created without the afd2 template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall talk  18:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment -- The second source establishes that there was an encounter between a force of 10,000 and one of 6,000, in which Nilkanth was killed. The question is whether this was at Pichuna, when it says he was returning from there and whether the engagement was a battle or merely a skirmish.  This is an article of an unsatisfactory kind that appears to be created to make use of the battle box template.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The claim of failed verification is certainly false. The article should be expanded from this book's p.75. desmay (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If the question is, where was this battle, keep and then change the contact your name in so far as that knowledge becomes clear. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 *  Comment - Dear editors, I could not find anything like Battle of Pichuna by reputed historians. The article seems to have misinterpreted the whole context- a peasantry based uprising is shown as some part of series of the fictitious wars between two groups here which wasn't the case in reality. And the claims of the article is doubtful considering no major writer has talked about it. It looks more of an another fringe based article pointing towards some intention of caste glorification by the owner. In my opinion the page is fit for deletion, as it is full of misinformation/misquoting of facts from heading to the end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RS6784 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment- The article needs to be deleted on three points:
 * 1. The title "Battle of Pichuna" is misleading. No reputed writers of Indian history from any school of thoughts has talked about "Battle of Pichuna" and it is not taught in any University of India. A skirmish cannot be overexaggerated as battle and presented on Wikipedia to confuse the readers. I request editors to look into it.
 * 2. This battle is shown here in the article as some part of the series of fictitious wars between two sides. During post Aurangzeb era there were peasantry based revolts. Some exchanges did happened but there were no fixed loyalties.
 * 3. I could only find one Dwivedi and Srivastava talking about a skirmish which resulted in death of one Nilkanth Nagar ( again they have not called it as Battle of Pichuna). No other reputed Historians has talked about any such Battle.
 * Considering all this fact, I think the article is fit for deletion. A simple description of such an event can be done on Sadaat Khan's page. We don't need a separate page for such skirmishes or military exchange which aren't even talked about by decent numbers of writers.
 * RS6784 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: Removed bold from the word "deleted" and "deletion" in the comment directly above (diff, diff). !Votes are placed in bold, but the nomination itself is considered the official !vote for deletion. Only one !vote is allowed. North America1000 08:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The book The Jats, Their Role in the Mughal Empire does seem to support the claims made in the article. The question of merging isn't an inappropriate one, considering that details are scant, but I don't think the nominator took the best course of action here by claiming everything was false. -Indy beetle (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - This battle occurred and has been given significant coverage in at least this source. However finding a second reference so this can pass WP:GNG has proved tricky. This source says that Nilkanth Nagar was defeated by the Jats in battle but gives no real details of the battle and does not say that Nilkanth Nagar was killed, but presumably this battle is what they are talking about. This source says that Nilkanth Nagar was murdered by the Jats. This source says Nilkanth Nagar was killed fighting the Jats but gives no details. This source gives a detailed description of the battle without mentioning exactly where it was. This source instead describes a rather fanciful story of Nilkanth Nagar's murder by a Jat without mentioning any battle. Whilst the sources are divided on how Nilkanth Nagar met his end, Nilkanth Nagar having fought and lost a battle against the Jats is not incompatible with this murder story and two sources that appear to be reliable ones (though of course if a more modern history is available we should prefer it) describe a battle that matches the one on the page occurring in September 1721 between Jats and forces under Nilkanth Nagar. The title "battle of Pichuna" is a descriptive one as far as I can see.
 * A merge is not appropriate unless a suitable target is identified, and I don't see one. FOARP (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

RS6784(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 *  Comment- FOARP, some of the links like Bingley etc given above are all from the days of British rule ( pre-1947). Now there is rule WP:RAJ made with respect to India. Regarding Jadunath Sarkar, he doesn't call it directly as "Battle of Pichuna". And even no modern historian has talked about a battle named "Battle of Pichuna". Therefore, how does the content of the page becomes fully reliable. We editors cannot directly judge whether a battle happened or not, it is upto writers to decide it. Recent historians have not mentioned about such a battle and this does point to something. I nominated the article for deletion as the title of the same itself is misleading. There is no mention of  Battle of Pichuna anywhere in history book. So how can we create one such Battle on Wikipedia. This is not the case like Battle of Panipat, Battle of Tarain etc which are described in history books.
 * They don't use the specific name "Battle of Pichuna", but that there was a battle in September 1721 near the village of Pichuna is supported by the sources. It is perfectly acceptable to decide a descriptive title to use here on Wikipedia. WP:RAJ is an essay that focuses especially on the issue of caste, and does not exclude using Raj-era history books, just that we should treat them with caution. FOARP (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 *  Comment- FOARP, why not merge it on Sadaat Khan's page. This way the title part becomes redundant. It was Sadaat Khan who was initially tasked to handle the Agra area, only when he was moved against Ajit Singh. The remaining task was given to some Nilkanth Nagar. So, if not delete then it should be merged on Sadaat Khan's page rather than creating a separate page with title - " Battle of Pichuna" which no modern historian mentions in any book.RS6784(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * But there are articles for which this battle is equally as, or even more relevant (e.g., Muhkam Singh, Bharatpur, Rajasthan). Sadaat Khan did not personally take part in the battle so his involvement in it is peripheral. Not an obvious merge target. FOARP (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge - One battle between Mokham Singh and Nilkanth Nagar did happen, there is no doubt about that. Where did that happen is only supported by one source that History of Jats by Dwivedi, he also only name a village where Nilkanth Nagar raids, doesn't say battle was fought there, rather says it was fought while returning. This book mind you is little biased towards Jats in general and I don't think author wrote any other book. Now about WP:NOTE, this battle is mentioned in two to three lines in every sources mentioned here. So it was not some important battle, and doesn't deserve its separate page. Above that no source give the battle a name, hence it is not regarded that much important by historians as to give it some name. My suggestion is it should be merged with Muhkam Singh.Hiensrt (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hiensrt - The issue you're highlighting here is essentially an article-naming one, right? If the article is kept, would a move to a different title address this? For example, both Jadunath Sakar and Dwivedi state that the battle happened near Fatehpur Sikri, so "Battle at Fatehpur Sikri" or "Battle near Fatehpur Sikri" addresses your concern about accuracy as to where it took place. It is not obvious why this battle (which definitely passes WP:GNG based on those two sources) should be necessarily merged to Muhkam Singh when there are other equally-suitable candidates - indeed that there are multiple candidates points to this being a suitable topic for a stand-alone article. FOARP (talk) 08:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * FOARP Not just naming, I also raised point of WP:NOTE. This battle which only mentioned as 2-3 lines in almost every sources we have seen, and not much detail is given in any book is in my opinion not qualified for a separate article. Specially because this battle happened in 18th century and almost every important or semi important battle of that time has been mentioned with vivid details by mamy historians. Merging with Muhkam Singh article will also beef up that article because that article is also a stub. Besides as I pointed out I have doubts about the book by Mr Dwivedi, I have read it a little bit and in my opinion it is biased towards Jat history.Hiensrt (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Some more sources to consider:
 * Uttar Pradesh District Gazetteers: Mathura - Not really significant coverage but describes the battle as happening near a mud fort near Mathura (which sounds like Fatehpur Sikri).
 * THE FIRST TWO NAWABS OF AWADH - Full page description of the battle, clearly significant coverage, again gives the location of the battle as being at or near Fatehpur Sikri.
 * On thing the second source makes clear is that this was all part of a wider conflict between the Mughals and the Jats, so does a wider article covering these campaigns exist? That might be a suitable target for a merge. At any rate a change of title is needed as only one source identifies Pichuna as the village that Nilkanth Nagar raided but all that cover the battle agree that his camp was at Fatehpur Sikri and he was ambushed whilst returning there. FOARP (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2021 (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.