- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Rajput Mughal marriage alliances
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Rajput Mughal marriage alliances ( | 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)
This article is mostly based on untrustworthy Colonial Era sources ( WP:RAJ) that are based on British-based work, assumptions or mythological beliefs and that are not allowed on Wikipedia please see WP:RAJ. This article requires extensive cleanup, or it should be redirected to the Jethwa clan page, where it should be addressed in the history section.I think this article does not meet the criteria for notability or should not be live on the main space for now. And this article should be redirected to the Jethwa clan page or moved to draft space as it is not ready for now to be live on the main space article. Here are many examples of WP:RAJ sources Please see Refrences no. [1], [3], [6], [8], [17], [26], [27],[28], [35], [36], [37] all are WP:RAJ era sources. Transe Ænd Danse ( talk) 19:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
deletion sorting lists for the following topics:
Ethnic groups,
History,
Royalty and nobility, and
India.
Transe Ænd Danse (
talk)
19:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment WP:RAJ is an essay, not policy. That said, we should be able to balance out the concerns with more modern sources.
Oaktree b (
talk)
19:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep 11 out of 50 sources isn't significant, so that addresses RAJ concerns. Recent scholarly journals, which will have a more updated point of view. Seems fine to me.
Oaktree b (
talk)
20:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- The first 25 sources are from the 1970s forward, so basically half the sourcing doesn't use British-era sources. These are fine. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep kindly remove this article from AFD because I made mistake will prod Delete I prod Jethwa dynasty and this page was wrongly prod for deletion Wich I also revert my mistake.
Good Faith.
Transe Ænd Danse (
talk)
20:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- It has sources from the 1960s going forward. It appears you're trying to push some sort of agenda here, please be careful.
Oaktree b (
talk)
20:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- no dear I have explained that I made a mistake my intention was to prod Another page of Jethwa dynasty when I undo revert my mistake a bot again prod this page for deletion I didn't. Transe Ænd Danse ( talk) 20:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- It has sources from the 1960s going forward. It appears you're trying to push some sort of agenda here, please be careful.
Oaktree b (
talk)
20:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep 11 out of 50 sources isn't significant, so that addresses RAJ concerns. Recent scholarly journals, which will have a more updated point of view. Seems fine to me.
Oaktree b (
talk)
20:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment WP:RAJ is an essay, not policy. That said, we should be able to balance out the concerns with more modern sources.
Oaktree b (
talk)
19:47, 28 August 2023 (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.
- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Rajput Mughal marriage alliances
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Rajput Mughal marriage alliances ( | 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)
This article is mostly based on untrustworthy Colonial Era sources ( WP:RAJ) that are based on British-based work, assumptions or mythological beliefs and that are not allowed on Wikipedia please see WP:RAJ. This article requires extensive cleanup, or it should be redirected to the Jethwa clan page, where it should be addressed in the history section.I think this article does not meet the criteria for notability or should not be live on the main space for now. And this article should be redirected to the Jethwa clan page or moved to draft space as it is not ready for now to be live on the main space article. Here are many examples of WP:RAJ sources Please see Refrences no. [1], [3], [6], [8], [17], [26], [27],[28], [35], [36], [37] all are WP:RAJ era sources. Transe Ænd Danse ( talk) 19:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
deletion sorting lists for the following topics:
Ethnic groups,
History,
Royalty and nobility, and
India.
Transe Ænd Danse (
talk)
19:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment WP:RAJ is an essay, not policy. That said, we should be able to balance out the concerns with more modern sources.
Oaktree b (
talk)
19:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep 11 out of 50 sources isn't significant, so that addresses RAJ concerns. Recent scholarly journals, which will have a more updated point of view. Seems fine to me.
Oaktree b (
talk)
20:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- The first 25 sources are from the 1970s forward, so basically half the sourcing doesn't use British-era sources. These are fine. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep kindly remove this article from AFD because I made mistake will prod Delete I prod Jethwa dynasty and this page was wrongly prod for deletion Wich I also revert my mistake.
Good Faith.
Transe Ænd Danse (
talk)
20:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- It has sources from the 1960s going forward. It appears you're trying to push some sort of agenda here, please be careful.
Oaktree b (
talk)
20:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- no dear I have explained that I made a mistake my intention was to prod Another page of Jethwa dynasty when I undo revert my mistake a bot again prod this page for deletion I didn't. Transe Ænd Danse ( talk) 20:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- It has sources from the 1960s going forward. It appears you're trying to push some sort of agenda here, please be careful.
Oaktree b (
talk)
20:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep 11 out of 50 sources isn't significant, so that addresses RAJ concerns. Recent scholarly journals, which will have a more updated point of view. Seems fine to me.
Oaktree b (
talk)
20:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment WP:RAJ is an essay, not policy. That said, we should be able to balance out the concerns with more modern sources.
Oaktree b (
talk)
19:47, 28 August 2023 (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.