Talk:Raja Devasish Roy

Proposed merge with Devasish Roy
Appears to be the exact same subject. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 09:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support merge with extreme caution: There is a whole world on nonsense going on with these articles. We have an alleged Kingdom and claimed royal dynasty without any reliable sources at all. As such I recommend to be very cautious about merging any poorly referenced content. I fear there could be a lot of WP:Bollocks here as well as WP:COI. Of course, if there is anything of value, that stands up to scrutiny, I support merging it but I have my doubts.


 * Of course, WP:V is the most immediate problem. Indeed, the only thing to prove that even one word of this is true is the UN reference: . Allow me to quote briefly. (The bold is mine, not from the source.):


 * "Raja Devasish Roy is a traditional Circle Chief – known as the Chakma Raja or Chakma Chief, in the Chittagong Hill Tracts region of Bangladesh since 1977. As Chief he is directly responsible for land and revenue administration,  administration  of  justice  and  for  advising  several  CHT-related  statutory governmental institutions, as an ex-officio adviser or member,"


 * So, this guy is primarily a politician, administrator and lawyer. He is also a chief (possibly hereditary) of a circle, clan or tribe (the precise details of which are still very unclear) but nothing here says "king" or "kingdom". My view is that his notability stems from his work not his birth and the article should be reframed in that manner. While some people maybe greatly impressed by minor or unofficial hereditary titles, I fear that we actually do him a disservice by focusing on that aspect in a way that distracts from his real notability.--DanielRigal (talk) 11:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I just want to know which article title is more accurate, other than that the subject is identical and the article content is almost identical so there really isn't a lot of thinking to do about the merge itself. Is "Raja" some sort of a title? If it's not a part of the name then I suggest redirecting this article to Devasish Roy. Besides that, I totally support pruning the article of unsourced info and possibly taking it to AfD. (Might want to try PRODing first.) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 11:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Raja is a title. Whether it is applied here in its traditional sense is not entirely clear but we generally do not include those in article names, even for indisputably pukka royalty. For example Queen Elizabeth II redirects to Elizabeth II. So it seems that the article should be called Devasish Roy and this should be a redirect. That is what it was briefly and that is what I would like to see it returned to.
 * That does not preclude merging any content of value, if anybody can find any, using the history. I'd like to do this sooner rather than later, if nobody has any objections. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Objections, I have none. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of related subjects
I am probably going to put a lot of the articles on the other "kings" up for AfD if I can't find any good sources on them to suggest that they have notability and verifiability beyond merely being clan chiefs. If we can get a decent reference for the circle/clan/tribe chiefdom itself then the article on that can be saved with editing. If not it will probably have to go too. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)