Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biji Rai


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Biji Rai

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Except for a passing mention in a dubious source (a book published in 1879), I can't find any other reference to this prince (searched JSTOR). Not only is notability dubious, it is uncertain whether he actually existed. regentspark (comment) 23:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And what about the sources found by the Google Books search linked above? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * is a good judge of the reliability of raj era books. Personally, I'd like to see recent references from academic historians. --regentspark (comment) 15:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * But quite a few of those books are much more recent than the raj era, and their publishers include the Punjabi University, the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies etc. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you link to the Punjab University book? The ISEAS book is written by a politician, not a reliable source. --regentspark (comment) 20:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that being written by someone who entered politics makes a book unreliable. It's the publisher that makes it reliable. The book published by the Punjabi University is this one. I didn't check the publishers beyond the first five of the 52 Google Books hits, because there was enough there to confirm that this is someone who is still known a millennium after he lived, and was a ruler, which is clearly enough to make him notable. Surely Google Books should have been one of the first places to look when conducting your WP:BEFORE research? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Historians carefully look for evidence before making historical affirmations. They look for contemporary sources or other reliable sources. A politician writing a book is likely to use material without verifying their accuracy. Academic sources are always more reliable. The punjab university source you link to above is a passing reference. "Mahumad ... attacked Biji Rai, a brave and strong....". Raj era sources are notorious for taking local stories and reshaping them to fit their own world view. You're right about looking at google books though. I have a strong bias for academic publications and tend to look only at JSTOR because google books tends to list books of dubious value (pov pushers, raj era publications) but I should have looked at it nevertheless. I still think that the historicity of Biji Rai is dubious so let's just see what other editors say. --regentspark (comment) 21:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And much of the writing of academic historians is in books, few of which are indexed by JSTOR, rather than in journals, so a more comprehensive search engine such as Google Books is needed. I agree that Raj era books should be treated with suspicion (I groan inwardly whenever I see a citation to Horace Arthur Rose), but many of the books found by Google Books are from modern academic publishers. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of evidence. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * An alternative spelling is
 * with the first of the book sources found being this one published by Routledge. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * with the first of the book sources found being this one published by Routledge. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Found another source King Baji Rai — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.72.130 (talk) 09:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Another sorce = King Baji Rai Source2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.72.130 (talk) 09:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See another source King Baji Rai source 3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.72.130 (talk) 09:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See the fourth souce = King Biji Rai source 4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.72.130 (talk) 09:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Fifth source King Biji Rai source 5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.72.130 (talk) 09:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Sixth source Great King Biji Rai of Bhera — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.72.130 (talk) 09:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The sources are good in number which are more than any unnoticed European Kings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.72.130 (talk) 10:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See a lot more sources for the the Great King Biji


 * Delete - it is insufficient merely to have a host of passing mentions. Sources must be all of (a) reliable, (b) independent and (c) discussing the subject matter in at least some depth. None of the sources presented satisfy all of these criteria. The subject appears at best to be an extremely minor footnote in history. Please note that history departments of quite a few Indian universities are themselves known to adopt a less than academic approach to their work and that many Raj books have been reprinted and/or plagiarised extensively by Indian publishers in recent years. In addition to this, snippet views of Google Books content are simply not acceptable - they lack context and in this instance they may not all even refer to the same person. I'm afraid we really need at least a couple of heavyweight academic sources otherwise we're quite likely just assisting in the glorification efforts of a select few aficionados who, more often than not in the Indian history sphere, have a political purpose as their goal rather than any real desire to show history as it actually occurred. - Sitush (talk) 09:18, 16 May 2016 (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.