Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Etawah (1770)


 * 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. I appreciate the source analysis. Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Siege of Etawah (1770)

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

This appears to be almost wholly unotable. Maybe a few scatered single-line references, a list entry. Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Relisting because of additions to the content of the article since its nomination. This is a situation where a good source analysis from an editor knowledgeable about this area of military history would be helpful to see whether or not this subject does hold "academic significance". Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support deletion per nom. Spent some cleaning this article, it's a mess, and one of many recently created messy India-related battle/siege/war articles created by brand new users, something is off. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's called "Indians getting an Internet connection and learning the English language", but unfortunately for Wikipedia, many of these editors do not have the WP:COMPETENCE to make net-beneficial contributions, let alone with WP:NPOV and without WP:BIAS. A growing problem. Of course, not just Indians! JM (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support as the article fails WP:GNG and couldn't find much informations from modern sources other than just getting mentioned in some sentences, the notability of the article is very low. Merge it with any of the parent articles. Imperial [AFCND]  19:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Just reminding that you are supporting for deletion while directing for merger is itself contrary. Sudsahab (talk) 09:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Contexts that fails significant notability are usually added to the main articles instead of creating an article for itself.  Imperial  [AFCND]  10:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Afghanistan,  and Uttar Pradesh.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not support deletion. Maratha history has got right to represent itself. Wikipedia has allowed erroneous and biased information regarding the Battle of Delhi (1737) in one-sided favor of the Mughal lovers, a gross injustice. I am absolutely sure that the person proposing the deletion is another Mughal Premi. Nothing wrong with the Mughals, but the history should be presented without colors. If there are references for the siege of Etawah, the article has all rights to be on wikipedia. NAZAARAEY (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We go by what wp:rs say, and no we do not wp:rightgreatwrongs with WP:FALSEBALANCE. Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * People would start making skirmishes as battles such as "Battle of X" in that sence. There is a thing called GNG. I would recommend you reading that. And if there is any concerns about any of the articles on wikipedia, take that to its respective talk page. Imperial  [AFCND]  18:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I dont support here is no reason to delete because I have deleted those sources which includes Sarkar Jadunath and WP:RAJ and those sources who have context or information are already added. I dont support deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudsahab (talk • contribs)
 * Borderline Delete - it appears that there is only one source (Sharkar) that discusses this siege in any depth… and that source’s reliability is questionable. That said - if other sources are found, my !vote would likely change. Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Looks as per WP:HEY standards. The article seems to be notable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonharojjashi (talk • contribs) 09:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep : In light of the current surge in conflicts among new users regarding battle-related articles, it is imperative to scrutinize their histories to discern biases and avoid succumbing to POV-pushing tendencies. The Siege of Etawah holds academic significance, being a chapter covered in B.A. level studies under the event "Rise and fall of Marathas." Given its educational relevance, removing such a minor yet academically acknowledged article seems unwarranted. I advocate for a measured and unbiased approach in evaluating the importance of historical events on Wikipedia, ensuring the platform remains a reliable source for comprehensive information.Pinkish Flowers (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete No WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. The fact that the actual siege is less than a paragraph shows how "notable" the topic is. Removed MOS:OVERSECTION. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete: Looking at the sources something happened around the end of 1770, but nothing called Siege of Etawah. I don't think any of the references in the article meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Not every event in every battle of every war needs a stand alone article.
 * I did a source eval for the first eight refs:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Comments !! Source
 * Nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly or indepth || 1. Sardesai Govind Sakharam (1948). New History Of The Marathas Vol-ii 1707-1772 (1948). B. G. Dhawale, Bombay. p. 511.
 * Nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly or indepth. I don't think this souce passes the NPOV test it seems very much like the victor writing their version of the history, || 2. ^ Rise & Fall Of Maratha Empire ( RV Nadkarni). 1966. p. 242.
 * Nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly or indepth, no mention of the subject or a seige on the indicated date || 3. ^ Naravane, M. S. (1999). The Rajputs of Rajputana: A Glimpse of Medieval Rajasthan. APH Publishing. p. 119. ISBN 978-81-7648-118-2.
 * Nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly or indepth, no mention of the subject by the article title || 4. ^ Bond, J. W.; Wright, Arnold (2006). Indian States: A Biographical, Historical, and Administrative Survey. Asian Educational Services. p. 78. ISBN 978-81-206-1965-4.
 * Nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly or indepth, no mention of the subject by the article title || 5. ^ Rise & Fall Of Maratha Empire ( RV Nadkarni). 1966. p. 243.
 * Nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly or indepth, no mention of the subject by the article title || 6. ^ Ghosh, D. K. Ed (1978). A Comprehensive History Of India Vol. 9. pp. 161–162.
 * Nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly or indepth, no mention of the subject by the article title, history in book goes only to 1748 || 7. ^ Chandra, Satish (1999). Medieval India: Mughal Empire, 1526-1748. Har-Anand Publications. p. 516. ISBN 978-81-241-0522-1.
 * Nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly or indepth, nothing about a seige, just states it was captured || 8. ^ Parkash, Ram; Sharma, Ram Prakash (1960). The Foreign Policy of Warren Hastings. Vishveshvaranand Vedic Research Institute.
 * }
 * This convinced me there is nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV about the event, nothing confirming a "Siege of Etawah" is a recognized name for this event.
 * The refbombing is obvious, if an editor finds sources for the "Siege of Etawah" with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, ping me with the refs showing this event merits a stand alone article, just the best three refs, no need for more, I won't read through a refbomb.  // Timothy :: talk  05:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly or indepth, no mention of the subject by the article title || 6. ^ Ghosh, D. K. Ed (1978). A Comprehensive History Of India Vol. 9. pp. 161–162.
 * Nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly or indepth, no mention of the subject by the article title, history in book goes only to 1748 || 7. ^ Chandra, Satish (1999). Medieval India: Mughal Empire, 1526-1748. Har-Anand Publications. p. 516. ISBN 978-81-241-0522-1.
 * Nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly or indepth, nothing about a seige, just states it was captured || 8. ^ Parkash, Ram; Sharma, Ram Prakash (1960). The Foreign Policy of Warren Hastings. Vishveshvaranand Vedic Research Institute.
 * }
 * This convinced me there is nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV about the event, nothing confirming a "Siege of Etawah" is a recognized name for this event.
 * The refbombing is obvious, if an editor finds sources for the "Siege of Etawah" with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, ping me with the refs showing this event merits a stand alone article, just the best three refs, no need for more, I won't read through a refbomb.  // Timothy :: talk  05:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This convinced me there is nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV about the event, nothing confirming a "Siege of Etawah" is a recognized name for this event.
 * The refbombing is obvious, if an editor finds sources for the "Siege of Etawah" with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, ping me with the refs showing this event merits a stand alone article, just the best three refs, no need for more, I won't read through a refbomb.  // Timothy :: talk  05:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete per the analysis by TimothyBlue above. I was also unable to find anything under "Siege of Itava" and "Siege of Ishtikapuri", using two other names for the city. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 19:35, 11 January 2024 (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.