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 redirect to Maharana Pratap#Reconquest of Mewar. The arguments to not keep this article are substantially more convincing in the light of Wikipedia policy. On the keep side there are vague assertions of importance and the existence of sources, but the detailed analysis of the sources by FDW777, who argues that the battle is nowhere described in any detail, has not been rebutted. A redirect is a reasonable alternative to deletion that takes into account the high number of "keep" opinions. Sandstein 07:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Dewair (1582) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Absolutely no WP:INDEPTH coverage of this event, references are either trivial mentions or about other subjects entirely and don't even mention this battle. The aftermath section is the most obvious example of this, with sentences like "Bhamashah's birth anniversary or Bhamashah Jayanti is celebrated on 29 June every year" and "Bhamashah Yojana bas been started on his name by government of Rajastha" which are pure padding and nothing whatsoever to do with the battle, the references cited don't mention the battle at all. See also Draft:Battle of Dewair (1582) for the long and inglorious history of this page, you'd think if there are actually any reliable references that deal with this article in any depth at all someone would have been capable of adding them at some point, the failure of anyone to do so suggests they don't exist. FDW777 (talk) 07:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a very important battle in Indian history. This was has undone the gains of Akbar in previous battle of Haldighati. Article is well sourced. Seems the nominator wants to delete this artcle as this is one of the battle that shows defeat of Mughal Empire, after which the empire changed their capital from Delhi to Lahore. Crashed greek (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crashed greek, Please don't cast aspersions. The nominator provided valid reasons for nomination. Curbon7 (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nominator tried to remove referenced content from the article, before nominating. I think he tried to vandalise the article before nomination. Crashed greek (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 09:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per this source, this seems to be a consequential battle, as it directly resulted in the surrender of a Mughal army sized 36,000 and led to the ejection of the Mughals from Mewar. A couple of more websources I came across that aren't cited in the page: [1] [2]. Here are a number of books that discuss the battle to some degree, though some may be passingly as an example of Pratap's strategies or general Mughal history: [3] [4] [5]. There are several other books at this Google books search link that don't have previews so I'm unsure which mention the battle or not, but being an offline source isn't disqualifying. Also, I take issue with the last sentence in the nom, considering the page was created in mainspace 5 days ago. The page certainly needs work, clean-up, additions, verification, and better integration with other articles; however, I see it as a notable battle. Curbon7 (talk) 09:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I refer you to the history of Draft:Battle of Dewair (1582), which I mentioned before the comment you take exception to. This isn't a five-day old problem, it's a months old problem. How much significant coverage is there really in the first link you provide? The battle itself gets less than two tiny paragraphs of coverage. That's the constant problem, there is no significant coverage of this battle which is why the article completely fails to actually say anything about the battle itself for the overwhelming majority of the time. FDW777 (talk) 10:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FDW777, Just the plain comparison to a draft that the person who created this page has never edited is a horribly flawed argument in and of itself, and I'll give you credit for having the guts to say that unironically. Almost no one checks draftspace for things to edit. All of that is disregarding the fact that the entire argument of "if it had sources, then it would be sourced by now" is bogus; even if sources exist but aren't presently cited, the sources still exist; that's the point of conducting a WP:BEFORE check, to check for sources that aren't cited in the article.
    Regarding notability, the first source I provided established the battle, the reasons for it, and the effects of the battle, which I should remind was the surrender of a large Mughal army and the expulsion of the Mughals from Mewar. Col. Tod's annals also account the battle (though I'm unsure if an online version exists). The battle occurred 550 years ago, so of course sources are scarce and not in-depth on the battle itself; not every article on a battle has to be as well detailed as the Battle of Gettysburg, especially considering information on pre-modern battles tends to be inherently lacking. As long as there is a significant effect of the battle and it has reliable sourcing, of which it has both, then it's good to go. Curbon7 (talk) 10:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sources are scarce for battles from 1582? Battle of Hastings (1066), Battle of Agincourt (1415), Battle of Bosworth Field (1485) and countless others beg to differ. FDW777 (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also Crashed geek has never edited the draft. But if they weren't aware of its existence, it's remarkable that Battle of Dewair (1582)#Memorial is pretty much word for word the same as Draft:Battle of Dewair (1582)#Memorial, and remarkably even manages to use the exact same non-refrerences that don't even mention this battle. FDW777 (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • And further also, as explained below the draft was in article space until July, when I moved the appalling article to draft space. Since then there's been no improvement whatsoever, in fact the draft was semi-protected due to the constant addition of unreferenced claims (which might be a first for draftspace). FDW777 (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding Tod, his work can be seen at Project Gutenburg. He uses "Dawer", rather than "Dewair". The only three mentions in the entire text are
      • With this splendid proof of gratitude, and the sirvente of Prithiraj as incitements, he again “screwed his courage to the sticking-place,” collected his bands, and while his foes imagined that he was endeavouring to effect a retreat through the desert, surprised Shahbaz in his camp at Dawer, whose troops were cut in pieces.
      • There is not a pass in the alpine Aravalli 407that is not sanctified by some deed of Partap,—some brilliant victory or, oftener, more glorious defeat. Haldighat is the Thermopylae of Mewar; the field of Dawer her Marathon
      • Elevated with every sentiment of generosity and valour, they passed on to Dawer, where they encountered the royal army led by the brother of the Khankhanan, as it entered the pass, and which, after a long and sanguinary combat, they entirely defeated
    • Given there is also Battle of Dewair (1606), these may not even be about the same battle and it would involve some cross-checking with the documented history of people mentioned in connection with the quotes. Even if they are all about this battle, they are trivial coverage dealing with the battle in a handful of words. FDW777 (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The source clearly mentions that it was Pratap who led the force. Pratap was not alive by year 1606, it was his son Amar Singh I who was the leader in that 1606 battle. Crashed greek (talk) 04:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:BASIC, I'm just not seeing significant coverage in multiple reliable sources here. Most of the sources seem to be blogs or vague passing mentions. If the battle was as significant as the bloggers claim I'd expect more detail of the battle in reliable sources. As the nom has pointed out there's almost nothing about the battle here. The fact the battle was 550 years ago is irrelevant, we have many sources for notable battles from antiquity, if this "battle" doesn't have sourcing that means it isn't notable. Mztourist (talk) 11:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete JSTOR, Google Scholar: no results; Google Books three very minor passing mentions. Fails WP:EVENT. Google search reveals a bunch of unsourced blogs and self-published materials which discuss the Battle which seem to emerge around 2017 ... given the state-sponsored historical revisionism of this period; extra vigilance is necessary. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: this was the major battle after Haldighati which has great importance in history. I was surprised there is no article about it. Bharat0078 (talk)
• Keep and combine/replace with Draft:Battle of Dewair (1582). The only problem is that this article is weak? It's not controversial or offensive? This seems like an important event to the sub-continent. The Draft:Battle of Dewair (1582) shows what this article could be, the only problem is sources? This one has GF attempts to find them. Frankly, I think the draft should be here with the combined sources and a flag that more are needed.

I find the nominator's last sentence just so backward that it supports "keep". If nothing else, nobody has seen the draft article to look for any sources. Thinking that a draft will get more than a few enthusiast editors is probably dreaming, I doubt that most editors use them and I'm comfortable thinking that virtually no readers do. Sammy D III (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing backward is your version of history. The draft was in article space until 11 July, when it was moved into draft space. FDW777 (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you think this article includes GF attempts to find references, I suggest you translate reference #10 (note, BitDefender blocks this on my PC due to potential security certificate issues). You will find absolutely no mention of Dewair, 1582, or any other connection with the historical Bhamashah. I note his article doesn't even mention Dewair at all, so exactly what is going on here? Is that text and reference really a good faith addition to this article? Or is it padding, a smokescreen to cover up how little has actually been written about this supposedly important battle? FDW777 (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong person to BS. I just re-read this and the draft and I see no mention of it being moved to a draft. You didn't mention that before? Could I see a diff to where you provided that history? And since you are the one who moved it there to start with, is there a diff for some consensus to do that. You didn't do that on your own, you have consensus? Maybe you do and I just don't see it? If you do have consensus then I apologize now and will agasin later. If you can show me a diff.

GF is subjective. Can you connect the editor of that source to the Draft? Sammy D III (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you didn't click on the diff labelled 11 July in my post then? The one that clearly says in the edit summary/description FDW777 moved page Battle of Dewair (1582) to Draft:Battle of Dewair (1582)? A move which can also be seen in the page log for Battle of Dewair (1582), which also says 21:05, 11 July 2021 FDW777 talk contribs moved page Battle of Dewair (1582) to Draft:Battle of Dewair (1582). So would you like to strike your inaccuarate claims now? FDW777 (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggest you look at the entry for the draft at Wikipedia:Requests for page_protection/Archive/2021/07#17 July 2021, where I state I would like to see this draft back in article space. But every day constant unreferenced changes are made by a variety of different IPs. It would appear the only way forward is if they are prevented from disrupting the draft article any further. Moving to draft space was intended to be temporary, since the article appeared to be beyond fixing by normal editing at that point. I would have absolutely no objection to the creation of a proper, well referenced article about this battle. But the history to date says that doesn't appear to be possible, I see several assertions it's an important battle but no actual references to write an article from. If the battle is as important as claimed, why has nobody written anything significant about it? FDW777 (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was gone. The link didn't work for me, but I believe you. I am sorry, you did provide the diff I asked for. Thank you.

I was judging on this article, not the history of the subject. I think the Greek may (I don't know the back story) have just stumbled in, I saw some of the same hero-worship lines in the sources.

Your major problem is that you know that the completely un-sourced Draft stuff will be jammed in here, that this article can't evolve naturally? I'm going to strike-through "Keep" because I think that will probably happen.

I don't know anything about the sub-continent, what happened and who wrote about it in what language at what time, so I don't want to judge by a US POV. "No source" is "no source" everywhere, but notable is subjective. I think that's for the local's POV.

Have a nice day/night. Sammy D III (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I can understand the reason behind draftification of Draft:Battle of Dewair (1582). But article's last best version was completely different than the one nominator had seen for the first time.

There are enough references verify notability of the subject.

• RPSC RAS Prelims: History of Rajasthan Complete Study Notes With MCQ. p. 49. Battle of Dewair (1582) - Maharana Pratap attacked a Mughal stronghold
• Maharana Pratap: The Invincible Warrior. Juggernaut. 1582: Battle of Dewair in which Maharana Pratap defeated the Mughal forces
• Laxman Prasad Mathur. War Strategy of Maharana Pratap: Its Evolution and Implementation. Publication Scheme. p. 152.
• A. N. Bhattacharya. Human Geography of Mewar. Himanshu Publications. pp. 69–71.

It pass WP:GNG, WP:N. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 06:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's the "best version"? Wow! Tod has been dealt with above, he mentions Dawer three times and is trival coverage. Bhawan Singh Rana's book is incorrectly cited, it doesn't even have 152 pages. Presumably the "79" is the actual page number? That page does mention some of the people apparently involved in the battle, only it doesn't mention the battle itself. Indeed, there is no mentioon of Dewair or Dawer in the entire book. A. N. Bhattachary is citing a single sentence in the "best version". Laxman Prasad Mathur isn't even cited in the "best version". The other quotes you provide demonstrate passing mentions of the subject, not in-depth coverage. If this in-depth coverage does in fact exist in the claimed references, then why did the "best version" of the article consist of so little information about the battle itself? Both the draft and live article and capable of being edited at present, please add the claimed in-depth coverage from the references to either, or both. FDW777 (talk) 07:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources provided above. Nevertheless, the article will require deletion and histmerge into Draft:Battle of Dewair (1582) which can be then moved to main space. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Which? The blogs? The one sentence mentions that give us nothing to write an article from? FDW777 (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as there are enough book sources for notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Which books have any significant coverage of this battle? FDW777 (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree there is no significant coverage in any book. Mztourist (talk) 03:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Maharana Pratap#Reconquest of Mewar. Where it does appear in reliable sources, this appears to be no more than a passing mention. Per WP:SIGCOV and WP:DEPTH, it is not sufficient that it is mentioned in a number of reliable sources, there must also be depth and detail in sources. This is where to topic fails WP:GNG. If the subject can be sufficiently expanded at Maharana Pratap#Reconquest of Mewar on the basis of reliable sources dealing with it in depth, then we might revisit the possibility of a stand-alone article. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Maharana Pratap#Reconquest of Mewar. I see a lot of assertions above about the existence of sources, but precious little evidence. I am unable to find coverage myself. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There are multiple news sources available too: [6] [7] [8] Crashed greek (talk) 04:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About a sentence in each about the battle. No depth. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely the point I was coming to make. There is no sigmificant coverage in any of those news articles from which we can write a standalone article. FDW777 (talk) 06:49, 16 August 2021 (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.