Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dhevvadhoo dynasty


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Mohamed bin Hajj Ali Thukkala. Clear consensus below that the article shouldn't be retained, but no real agreement on whether to merge or not. Redirecting (as they are cheap) and if anyone needs to merge content at any point, they can do so editorially from behind the redirect. Daniel (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Dhevvadhoo dynasty

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Subject fails WP:GNG. The cited sources are mere mentions and the UNESCO site says nothing about the dynasty. I don't know why accepted this draft. I couldn't find sources about the dynasty in English but I cannot rule out foreign-language results. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 00:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Maldives.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we could merge the information from these dynasty pages into the Sultanate of Maldives? These articles barely seem to be notable on their own, it would make more sense to merge them into the history section of the actual state. 296cherry (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

“ The Friday mosque in the island of Fenfushi was built between 1692-1701 CE during the reign of Sultan Mohamed of Dhevvadhu (1692-1701 CE)” so it’s not accurate to say that there isn’t a mention. Hy Brasil (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I’d assumed that being a royal dynasty would have some inherent notability, but if that’s not the case I fully understand. We should probably take a look at the similarly sourced articles Dhiyamigili dynasty and Isdhoo dynasty as well. Perhaps the whole lot should be deleted? Basically, I was trying to fill in the gaps, with improved sourcing and content. The UNESCO site does contain this direct reference to the Dhevvadhoo dynasty though
 * I had been planning to go through this entire category of Maldivian dynasties and add more sourcing (it’s quite lacking), but if it’s likely they will be deleted, I won’t bother. It’s good this came up. Hy Brasil (talk) 01:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting. Discussion is great but it would also be helpful to know where editors ultimately stand on what should happen with this article. Does the article have issues that can resolved through editing or it is better to delete it from main space? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Relisting as we have two different Merge targets suggested here. Editors have to come to a consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I searched all the social science oriented libraries and databases available through TWL for both "Dhevvadhoo" and "Dhevvadhu". Got a few news hits for Dhevvadhoo as a toponym, and the one other source is an open access publication which has the same sentence as the UNESCO source, about Sultan Mohamed of Dhevvadhu (1692-1701 CE). Given this date span is identical to the Pakistan Observer source from the article (Singh 2022), I suggest that the "Devvadhoo dynasty" is "the one sultan that one time from the island of Dhevvadhoo / Dhevvadhu". Maybe Sultan Mohamed of Dhevvadhu has sources in some language, but I doubt his "dynasty" (which, sensu strictu isn't, as it involves no familial succession) has any notability independent from the individual. Folly Mox (talk) 07:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I believe the articles should be deleted and merged into Sultanate of Maldives. They don't hold enough weight to stand alone, and they work perfectly fine within the main article's text. 296cherry (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at the whole series (and honestly probably don't have time to), but the redlink merge target I proposed above already exists at Mohamed bin Hajj Ali Thukkala (which was probably already in the article when I commented on 17 October, had I bothered to do the reading instead of just looking for sources). Suggest merge into Mohamed bin Hajj Ali Thukkala, leaving behind a redirect for the six inbound mainspace links. Folly Mox (talk) 10:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Alright, I agree with merging into Mohamed bin Hajj Ali Thukkala 296cherry (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - Amongst other problems, discussing a dynasty with a single member is like having a school of a single fish. I cannot find any source that clearly and unambiguously refers to this as a dynasty (probably for the reason just mentioned), thus failing WP:GNG. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Merge to Mohamed bin Hajj Ali Thukkala per FM; from a practical POV, a "dynasty" of one person is that person, so to speak. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment https://pakobserver.net/dynastic-profile-of-muslim-rulers-in-maldives-by-dr-rajkumar-singh-bihar/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by CAJaganaddamRJY (talk • contribs) 04:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing to merge; all the contents are already present in Mohamed bin Hajj Ali Thukkala. It's also an unlikely search term, but redirects are cheap, so might as well leave it as one. Owen&times; &#9742;  20:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete How does one person make a dynasty? I can see only one source (Pakistan Observer) which uses the term, my searches did not turn up anything else; article appears to be original research. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:02, 16 November 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.