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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maratha raid on Delhi (1737)[edit]

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

Maratha raid on Delhi (1737) (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)

The sources seem to be (where I can view them) a collection of snippets and/or fail wp:v. Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Merge: I am also concerned about verifiability of several portions but the incident itself is regarded as a indicator of the decline of the Mughal Empire. While the article does cite a Mughal victory, the reality is that Bajirao did successfully evade the Mughal army, attack the outskirts of Mughal capital and retreat before the Mughal empire could effectively mount a counter attack. It must have had a tremendous effect on morale. Check out page 116 of Mehta's Advanced Study in the History of Modern India, it's available online. It's also described in some detail in Mountstuart Elphinstone's book History of India Vol II on pages 609-610. There are several additional sources that discuss the longterm effects of the incident, but I'm heading to work so I'll leave you with the few available online:

Annwfwn (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources you have used here fails WP:RAJ. But I do agree that Bajirao successfully defeated a Mughal contingent at the outskirts of the Delhi. But they were defeated by the Mughals during the retreat march. Consider reading this section. Imperial[AFCND] 05:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, he was eventually defeated, hence the Mughal victory is appropriate. I do concede you have an excellent point about Elphinstone, though. Annwfwn (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"eventually defeated"? Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Annwfwn this seems like a good argument for dealing with the raid on Muhammad Shah, Mughal Empire, and Mughal–Maratha Wars, rather than in a separate article. -- asilvering (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a good idea. But there are hundreds, may be thousands of such "Battle of X" kind of articles in wikipedia of Indian history itself. I am pretty sure that there are many articles that fails GNG and poorly sourced (just mentioning in a line in books, and doing SYNTH for making up the article. Even I did that sometimes.). So, should we go for all of it? Imperial[AFCND] 05:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well... yes. If the topics don't meet GNG and are poorly sourced, they should be dealt with - by redirecting to appropriate parent articles, by incorporating into a list article, by deletion, or by whatever other means make sense for the topic at hand. That's true of all poorly sourced, non-notable articles, not just ones on Indian military history (though there certainly are a lot of Indian milhist articles that fit this description). -- asilvering (talk) 07:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. In this case, this military conflict is a part of campaign of Marathas aganist Mughals. In that campaign itself, over 5 military conflicts happened. So should we create a single article for the whole campaign consisting all the conflicts, or should we delete this with just a redirect(context is already covered)? Consider Battle of Jalesar too. That was the part of the campaign. And I agree with the point of @Annwfwn that this campaign have a significant role for the Maratha-Mughal conflict in 18th century. I would go for merging this article with Battle of Jalesar, and then move that into a better title. Imperial[AFCND] 10:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two wrongs do not make a right, if you know of any other articles like this nominat3 them for AFD, do not use it as an argument to keep this one. We can't know about every article that exits here, only that that crosses our radar. Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. When did I say that two wrongs would make a right? I said it would be better to create an article for the entire campaign instead of having articles for minor conflicts that would have low notability. Neither I supported keeping this article (see my vote). Imperial[AFCND] 12:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its indentation makes it clear, that was not a reply to you. Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I have a foolish behaviour that I reply to every comments I get notified thinking that is for me. Imperial[AFCND] 12:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Er, was it supposed to be a reply to me? I'm not sure how what I said could possibly be read as an argument in favour of keeping this article. -- asilvering (talk) 07:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all, I think @User:ImperialAficionado has a valid suggestion that it can be merged into an article with the Battle Jalesar and the additional campaigns of this period. I've revised my position. Annwfwn (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, right now, it seems opinion is divided between Deletion and a possible Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 8 January 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.
More