Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Sikandra


 * 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 and move to Desecration of Akbar's tomb. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Sikandra

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

There are four citations on the page and none of them mention any battle, the incident Rajaram looting the tomb of Akbar is made into a battle page where no battle was fought. I searched for it in many later mughal history books and on google books too but I can't find any source mentioning this battle. It was also created by a single purpose sockpuppet who has been blocked indefinitely. Hiensrt (talk) 06:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment While three of the citations contain page numbers (e.g. "" in ref #2), these numbers always correspond to the total length of the source (e.g. ref #2 is exactly 717 pages long per the linked Google Books page). It seems to me that this is a misundertanding of the "" argument in and none of the citations actually cite a specific page or page range. -Ljleppan (talk) 11:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the link directly takes us to the search term which do mention looting of Akbar's tomb at Sikandra but no battle. And these are the links that were provided by the creator of the article, so this is what he had.Hiensrt (talk) 08:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)


 *  Delete : Appears to have been a real event, but "battle" seems to be overblowing it, with e.g. the Elphinstone link saying "vandalism" and The Cambridge Shorter History of India calling it "plundering". At the same time, all the references I could find appear to be rather passing mentions. For example, The Cambridge Shorter History of India (based on a Google Books search) has less than a full sentence on this. As all the references appear to be so passing, I believe this fails the significant coverage aspect of WP:GNG. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As has found references to establish significant coverage, I'm changing my !vote to move to Desecration of Akbar's tomb. -Ljleppan (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Move to Desecration of Akbar's tomb and remove the redundant infobox.


 * Irrespective of the article's title, the article's content is about the desecration of Akbar's tomb, which is a notable as well as a historically important event. So the page should be moved to Desecration of Akbar's tomb, as the sources use exactly this or a similar title while describing this incident.


 * Note that Rajaram actually attacked the site of Akbar's tomb, i.e. Sikandara, thrice, and two of his attacks were specifically to desecrate the Akbar's tomb. Also, he did lose 400 men in confrontation with the imperial force during one of these attacks. And we do need to mention those failed attempts in the article, as they are relevant to the topic. It seems the page creator relied on the snippet views available at Google Books, which resulted in the misrepresentation of a few details as well as the article's wrong title. Anyway, here are a few sources giving a full account of Rajaram's desecration of Akbar's tomb:






 * [Few details about the second and the third sources quoted above: Dr. Girish Chandra Dwivedi served as head of the History Department at Kashi Vidyapith. And his above book is based on his PhD thesis prepared under the personal supervision of historian Ishwari Prasad. The book is probably the most in-depth source about the Jats' role in the Mughal Empire. Unsurprisingly, multiple historians specialising/knowledgeable in the Indian history of that era – e.g. Irfan Habib, Eugenia Vanina, Shail Mayaram, etc. – suggest/recommend it. Similarly, the book of Dr. Ram Pande is also based on his accepted PhD thesis (see here), which he prepared under the supervision of historian Arthur Llewellyn Basham, and is suggested by Eugenia Vanina. ]


 * As far as the historical importance of this event is concerned, multiple prominent subject experts, including the historians John F. Richards and Catherine B. Asher, describe it as an affront to the Mughal empire. This event also escalated the Jat-Mughal confrontations to a different level, as from here onwards, Mughals also summoned Kachhwaha rulers of Amber (Jaipur) to subdue Jats.


 * Finally, the weird act of burning Akbar's remains sounds like the last rights performed among Hindus. And it does have a Hindu connection: this was done to avenge Akbar's matrimonial alliances with Hindu women! Unsurprisingly, scholars cite it as a notable example among the notorious ones of its kind.


 * - NitinMlk (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   14:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep and move per NitinMlk. Srnec (talk) 01:28, 21 December 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.