Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Saunshi


 * 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. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 12:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Saunshi

 * – ( View AfD View log  of Saunshi Stats )

There is no information available about this battle at all there is no mention in enough amount of sources that there should be a separate page or even a paragraph dedicated to a small incident of hardly two sentence. Total google results are not even three-hundred, and they have copied wikipedia. D4iNa4 (talk) 12:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Pinging for opinion. D4iNa4 (talk) 07:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    13:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    13:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. A search through Google for <"battle of saunshi" -wikipedia> finds thirteen results.  While the Google test is often not authoritative, a late-eighteenth-century battle between major Indian powers (one being Hyder Ali, who received a good deal of British attention) can be expected to get far more than thirteen hits.  Moreover, the citation is a fabrication; it claims that the information is derived from page 916 of a printed book, but the book ends at page 745.  Nyttend (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Incorrect. It is indeed on page 916 of the source, as indicated in this link: . Direct quote: "Haidar Ali of Mysore recovered from loss at Chinkurli (1771) to regain Coorg and Malabar, previously lost to the Marathas, then sent a force under Mohamed Ali across the Tungabhadra in southern India. Near Dharwawr at Saunshi, Patwardhan Chief Konher Rao was defeated and killed and Padurang Rao was captured. As a result, many local Chiefs soon submitted to Haidar". Xtremedood (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that's a different source. Since you insist that I'm wrong, please quote for me even the first word that appears on page 916 of https://books.google.ca/books?id=Dh6jydKXikoC, which is the cited URL.  Nyttend (talk) 04:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - same as other phantom battle. There's no record that this battle under this name happened. —Мандичка YO 😜 21:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: as per Nyttend. There is no detailed description of this battle in reliable sources to deserve separate article. One or two passing mentions can seen but it is not significant enough to write separate article. Fails WP:MILNG. Do not have multiple reliable sources despite vast literature written on Indian history, specially battles between major powers of India. -- Human 3015   TALK   23:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is a well documented battle. Just because the Hindu dynasty of the Marathas lost, does not mean that it should be removed. Here are some references, , . Xtremedood (talk) 00:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Xtremedood, what you want to prove by mentioning religion? Your comment can be explained by WP:TDLI. You have provided 3 sources, first 2 are same books but you posted it twice and book is non-accessible. Third source have just passing mention which can be added in parent article of Maratha or Haider. Do you think mention of 2-3 lines somewhere deserves article? Read basic WP:GNG. Does effect of this incident was log lasting? Sources do not cover any more aspect of this event other than just "mention". -- Human 3015   TALK   00:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Small typo it seems, here is the third source: . The user who requested for the deletion of the article, user:D4iNa4 has a history of blanking entire sections of articles related to Hinduism, see . Therefore I do not think religious motivations should censor articles. The battle of Saunshi is well recorded and should stay. Xtremedood (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that is a troubling edit and have responded to your comment on the talk page. You didn't like a few recent edits in the section about Hinduism, so blanked the entire Hinduism section? huh? —Мандичка YO 😜 15:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Here is another source Xtremedood (talk) 01:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A passing mention from a source of 1884 is best you could get? D4iNa4 (talk) 07:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - Here is another source It however uses the word "Sansi" on page 119 to refer to Saunshi. Xtremedood (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - this source has made me reconsider. It is a neutral source (Dictionary of Battles and Sieges by Tony Jaques, and has first-rate academic editors/contributors) and while it is not extensive, it not only confirms the battle happened, but states that a chief was killed, another dude who I presume is notable was captured, and "as a result, many local chiefs soon submitted to Haidar." This would indicate the battle was indeed notable and had consequences. This plus the other info above from the Gazetteer etc is sufficient to write a decent article. Thank you  for providing this info.  —Мандичка YO 😜 04:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's called a passing mention and I had already mentioned it on my top comment that except that single source there is no other mention. If none of the sources have anything more than two liners regarding this incident, why we should have whole separate article? Gazetteer is a snippet from 1884, the golden period of fringe theories. This incident was non-notable and fails WP:GNG. D4iNa4 (talk) 07:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't notice that. An issue is that we were looking for "Battle of Saunshi" when it doesn't actually appear to have such a formal Western name. Thus I could not find anything. That it was included in a respected Western encyclopedia of battles not only confirms it took place but indicates that it is of significance. Your claim that the source from 1884 is irrelevant because it was the "golden age of fringe theories" is silly. There is no reason to believe the Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency, written by a Scotsman and beautifully cited with footnotes, is anything but a reliable source (though no doubt sympathetic toward the British). The reason why the Gazetteer is only a paragraph or so is this is not a book about the war, but a massive 800-page anthology covering everything ever about Dharwad - look at the insane table of contents. . The Gazetteer report also confirms this battle was a turning point. I really don't even know what you mean by "fringe theories" - are you suggesting this information we have describing this battle is misleading or that it's a hoax? You say it shouldn't have a "whole separate article" but you are not suggesting it be merged - you want it deleted. So which is it? Finally considering it is a battle that is obscure by Western standards, happening in 1777, it seems quite likely there are additional, offline, sources available (especially non-English).  —Мандичка YO 😜 08:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Only two sources in over two hundred years, one of them being dubious while other one is over hundred year old? That's not reliable sourcing. 12:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Nom seems to be trigger happy with AFD's without satisfying the BEFORE requirement. There seem to be a lot of sources to show that this meets GNG. What seems to be the problem to be frank? NOM should keep in mind that not every war/battle needs millions of deaths and hundreds of miles of area to become notable. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * How many reliable sources we have? That actually mention this battle? Or any that have detailed it? None. D4iNa4 (talk) 12:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 14:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - If something doesn't exist on the internet, it doesn't mean that it does not exist at all: Could more WP:DEPTH be provided by non-English literature? I tried my best to find the Hindi name for this battle but failed. The references are barely enough for WP:MILNG. 18th century India's turmoil might give some biases in historiography for other notable events, as this battle occurred during the First Anglo-Maratha War. Ceosad (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep despite the detyails given of what happened being rather thin. The sources quoted clearly indicate that a conlect of some kind took place.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2015 (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.