Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captivity of Kodavas at Seringapatam


 * 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) — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 14:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Captivity of Kodavas at Seringapatam

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to be a POV fork from Persecution of Hindus, but it is OR. Unless a subjugated population are captives? And none of the sources seem to be any good. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Same as in the case of the captivity of Nairs article, this article also needs a cleanup. It speaks about events where a people, called Coorgs in some sources, were captured in a time frame and it also seems to have been independent of the Persecution of Hindus article. Again Seringapatam is an archaic misspelling.Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I have split the article into two sections: on Hyder Ali and on Tipu Sultan. Also I have included material on the captivity of the Coorgs (Kodavas) in Seringapatam from Punganuri, a JSTOR related secondary non-colonial source written in 1849. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC) I have added some more related info from Punganuri and another secondary source JSTOR material, a paper in the Mysore University Journal by a professor of the Department of History.Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Added material from Moegling's book which is another JSTOR secondary source Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I looked, the article relies almost exclusively on two books, one written in 1849 and the other written in 1855, what on earth makes you think these are RS? Darkness Shines (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Moegling (1855) is a majority view on Coorgs while Punganuri (1849) is a majority view on the Mysore Sultans. Both are secondary sources and are relatively more moderate in opinion then other sources. Punganuri is oft quoted for its very conservative number of Coorg (Kodava) converts mentioned (500) while Moegling's work, which speaks of at least one instance of invasions by both Hindus and Muslims on temples, is most often referred with regard to the history of Coorgs. Even Richter's more popular Gazetteer of Coorg (1870) and B L Rice's later works on Coorgs are based on what Moegling wrote from other sources. Hence both are RS. Meanwhile, I am looking out for more majority views as well as a significant number of minority views have already been expressed. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 07:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Made some more editing and added matter from a RS (Mohibbul Hassan, a scholarly secondary source approved by scholars such as Irfan Habib) Hassan, who has also referred Moegling and Punganuri, is also a majority view and moderate in opinion. Hassan is widely cited with regard to Tipu. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The article is about actual captives who were deported and held. There are in fact already some verified sources (like C. Hayavadana Rao, Bowring, N. Shyam Bhat and others) used. One can find many more (like Kirmani, Kirkpatrick and others) to support this. There is no source which denies the captivity of the Coorgs/ Kodavas under Tipu Sultan. So this article is not OR or POV. I suggest that DS remove the proposed deletion tag soon. Thanks Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Well sourced and encyclopedic. The article was there since 2009 and now suddenly why this AFD discussion? We may keep the article. I also politely like to point out that it appears that there is no POV issue in this article.Rayabhari (talk) 14:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You honestly think books from 1849 and 1855 are RS? The sources are junk. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Punganuri (1849) and Moegling (1855) are definitely not junk as demonstrated by the fact that historians like Mohibbul Hassan and others refer to them. They are RS because they both are "authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject". Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And when they refer to them, do they say, hell ya, this stuff is spot on? I doubt it, I will bet ten to the pound that they attribute it as those sources are not even remotely reliable. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hassan and the others don't dispute the captivity of the Kodavas, the Nairs or Christians in Srirangapatna. But what is disputed is the actual number of people involved. Hassan and others have quoted from these sources in their books. The smallest number quoted is 500, as stated by Punganuri while the largest number quoted is 85,000 as stated by B L Rice. So hence both ends of the range are mentioned. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 02:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, article is significant enough I don't think it warrants AFD. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep -- The article has multiple sources and loads of citations. It may rely too heavily on certain sources.  However it is certainly NOT WP:OR.  The question of how reliable the underlying sources are may well be a controversial question, but it is one to be argued out between academics.  Doing so within WP would itself be a form of WP:OR.  I am not convinced that the title of the article is an ideal one, but that is no reason for deletion.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Like the article Captivity of Nairs at Seringapatam I suspect that the nom's ground for proposing deletion of this article as well is "IDONOTLIKEIT". About the title, Coorgs was the name given to the Kodavas during the British Raj, they are the same. Edit it if required. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 08:16, 27 February 2014 (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.