Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Haidru (1828) (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus‎. AfD is not a place for accusing others of being Sockspuppets. I am closing as no-consensus due to the lack of policy-based discussion about the article. (non-admin closure) Shadow311 (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Haidru (1828)

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Battle of Haidru (1828) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete or redirect to Military campaigns of Hari Singh Nalwa. Out of the 5 sources on this page, only 2 are reliable; Hari Ram Gupta and Rishi Singh. The two other sources: "Journal of the United Service Institution of India" as well as "Selections from the records of the government of Punjab" are WP:RAJ era sources written in the 1800s, so under no circumstances can we use them. The last source is a Google books snapshot with no preview available either on Google books or anywhere else on the Internet. Such snapshots have been deprecated in the reliable sources noticeboard.

The coverage in both Hari Ram Gupta's and Rishi Singh's work, the extent of which are only small, singular paragraphs does not justify an entire Wikipedia article and fails Wikipedia's standards for notability-[1] Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: if an event has 2 reliable independent sources with significant coverage that is enough to presume notability per GNG. I don't see what the issue is here. I'd also note that WP:RAJ is just an essay and that it refers to the use of certain Raj-era sources to source content on the caste system. It does not mean that all such sources are can never be used for anything.
Jtrrs0 (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Jtrrs0:, I think there's a misunderstanding, the two reliable sources (Hari Rm Gupta and Rishi Singh) do not have significant coverage, hence my nomination for deletion. Both sources only have one small, vague paragraph that provides no in-depth details about the battle.
Here is what Hari Ram Gupta says of the battle: "Having failed at Peshawar, Sayyid Ahmad planned to seize Attock fort from the Sikhs. Its possession by him would automatically clear Hazara and Peshawar from the Sikhs, and it would open the gateway for the invasion of the Panjab. Khadi Khan of Hund secretly alerted the Sikh commander of the fort, and the plan fell through. Sayyid Ahmad, in anger attacked the village Haidru, and put to the sword all the inhabitants, both Hindus and Muslims. On hearing this news Hari Singh Nalwa suddenly appeared on the scene and massacred nearly three-fourths of Khalifa's Ghazis. Sayyid Ahmad managed to escape to the west of the Indus."
Rishi Singh says: "It appears that even when he seemed successful, Syed Ahmad began losing his control over the tribal leadership. Many tribal chiefs began betraying him. For instance, at the time of taking over the fort of Attock, Khadi Khan of Hund alerted the Sikh commander, Hari Singh Nalwa, who with his 20,000 men attacked Syed Ahmad’s forces and killed three-fourths of the Khalifa’s Ghazis".
As you can see the coverage in both sources fall well short of Wikipedia's SIGCOV requirements.
The rest of the sources were published in the 1800s and are simply far too old to use. WP:RAJ is an essay, but it's essentially a de facto policy and widely accepted norm in South Asian topic areas, even outside of caste topics. You can see through the reliable sources noticeboard that WP:RAJ sources are thoroughly deprecated and disallowed on Wikipedia-[2]. @RegentsPark:, an admin involved in SA topics, could also clarify, or you could take it up with him to confirm. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi thanks for the ping and the reply. I see. Re SIGCOV, I would agree. This doesn't necessarily seem like SIGCOV. Re WP:RAJ, I've had a quick glance at the discussion on the Noticeboard. To me it seems overkill to say that 1800s sources can never be used or must be used as primary sources. I accept that that should be the case re anthropological subjects but for everything? Seems excessive to me. Now, if the consensus is that they are never to be used for anything (would be grateful if RegentsPark could confirm) then I'll happily reconsider my position, but to my eyes that's excessive. Jtrrs0 (talk) 08:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jtrrs0: I understand your concerns but sources authored in the 1800s are plain and simple not allowed in this topic area of Wikipedia. Even sources in the early 1900s are granted some leeway if they were authored by very prominent Indian historians, but the sources in this page were written British administrators in the framework of the British polity. RegentsPark has also stated: "In short, I would suggest discounting most Raj era texts regardless of who wrote them and be careful about using obscure or popular texts post-Raj. Sticking to modern academic writers is probably the safest. Context, to quote TB below, matters." and "Thanks Sitush. @Suthasianhistorian8 and Twarikh e Khalsa:, in short, the consensus is that neither McAuliffe nor Gurbilas Patashahi are reliable sources and you should not use them. In general avoid raj era sources entirely and, for historical content, use only recent sources since historiography is not static.". Keep in mind, Max Arthur MacAuliffe was a British administrator and historian who authored his works on Indian religion in 1909, the sources in this article predate that by 20 and 34 years. They're no where near being recent or modern scholarship.
Also can I assume that you have this page on your watchlist so I don't have to ping you everytime? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the in depth reply. Yes. On Watchlist. Will reply more fully tomorrow. I think I’ll be changing my position to delete. Jtrrs0 (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Two reliables sources and others are all unreliable like Journal of the United Service Institution of India from 1890 and other by CAPTAIN P. L. N. CAVAGNARI, a British captain/administrator. The combination of two reliable sources by Gupta and Singh give the why, when, where and outcome of the battle, enough for passing WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: I've previously expressed concerns that RangersRus is a sockpuppet of HaughtonBrit, an incredibly pertinacious sockmaster who created dozens of sock/burner accounts ranging from early 2023 till present day, and someone who has been hounding and trying to sabotage me unceasingly since his sock accounts Javerine and Ralx888 were blocked. I most recently dealt with his sock account Dekhoaayadon who was blocked just a few days ago. His vote here is reminiscent of the frivolous arguments and WP:IDHT which HB frequently employed to frustrate me and many others to retain articles/edit which aggrandized the Sikh religion as much as possible- he is blatantly trying to sabotage me here. He has done this on 3 separate occasions. Once the current HB SPI report (which is closely linked to Dekhoaayadon) is dealt with I will ask admins to take a look at RangersRus' duck edits. Enough is enough. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Closer, this is case of WP:BULLY and revenge threat to stop me from voting. All editors have right to vote here and I have voted on AFDS by Suthasianhistorian8 before in his favor where I found the nomination to be right. When I vote against because I do not see the nomination to be right, he makes this sock threats. Suthasianhistorian8 filed SPI before for same reason that two admins @The Wordsmith: and @Drmies: found no connection [3]. Suthasianhistorian8 also filed incident of Administrator noticeboard against The Wordsmith for misunderstanding his SPI case and the incident was closed with closing statement "No consensus has or will emerge to find fault with TheWordsmith's or Drmies' SPI findings." [4]. Suthasianhistorian8 also did forum shopping and WP:OTHERPARENT to try to block me with revenge SPI case. Suthasianhistorian8 has no problem with my vote when in his favor but has one with not in his favor. RangersRus (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All I can say to everyone involved is to wait for the SPI I will file. This time I will put much more effort into making it concise and thorough as possible; last time I made the mistake of writing things off the top of my head, I won't do that next time. Lastly, a CU check was never ran on RangersRus, only a behavioural analysis was done- HB's sock accounts like Finmas & Dazzem were previously also deemed unrelated, but were later blocked on the grounds of duck edits with HB's IPs, proxies and SPAs. Historian2325, another suspected sock account, was also checked last year and was found to be unrelated, but since then he's made numerous duck edits and will likely also be blocked. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It is not appropriate to accuse an editor of being a sockpuppet in an AFD discussion. If you have concerns, file a case at SPI. If there is no confirmation of sockpuppetry through an SPI, then you are just trying to tarnish the reputation of an editor which is a personal attack. Please conduct a discussion elsewhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, above users are correct. Two reliables sources is enough. Definitely doesn't warrant deleting a article. Deletion nominator has behavior of targeting only Sikh victory battle articles.
UnbiasedSN (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:SIGCOV. The combined coverage in both sources doesn't even exceed 200 words, and they're both virtually identical to one another.Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Battle_of_Haidru_(1828)_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1219393433"