Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gana sangh kshatriya


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Gana sangh kshatriya

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Seems to be a complete hoax. 0 Google books hits and Scholar hits. Most web references are wikipedia mirrors -- Redtigerxyz Talk 05:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  — Redtigerxyz  Talk 05:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete THe article seems incoherent and does not seem to be clear about what it is talking about. Very few references, not all are trustworthy and seemingly none about the title itself. Possibly an OR, seemsl liek an alternate version of Mahajanapadas. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I gave this one the benefit of the doubt when it was created but if its coherence and verifiability is still so poor as to make it impossible to tell if it is a real subject after all this time then we have no choice but to delete it. It's not like we can ask the author. He hasn't been seen since creating the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Verifiability poor? Has anyone apart from me read the sources cited?  At least one (Singh2008) supports an entire quarter of the article, not least because that quarter of the article has been lifted wholesale, with only very light paraphrasing, from that source.  Verifiability is not poor at all.   The real problem with this article is the blatant plagiarism, the poor introduction, and the bad title, which should more properly be the name that I've fixed in the handy little tool &#x21d7; above (and at which we currently have a fairly bad and uninformative article). Uncle G (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably because you're referring to Gana sangha which is in a sorry shape and which is where a majority of the content of this article belongs. The addition of the term "Kshatriya" to this makes it a synthesized POV piece (just go through the many Indian caste and polity related articles and you'll notice that). I'd think that this article ought to be nuked as G12 and the sources added to the other article with relevant content. In addition to the Upinder Singh book, and  appear to be sources for significant chunks of text that have now been slightly modified. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  18:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is not that Verifiability was poor. The problem was that "Gana sangh kshatriya" seems to be a newly coined term, a hoax and the paragraphs were irrelevant.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Having been asked to review this for copyright concerns, I've found that significant content was copied directly from the 2008 source. The article is now blanked for copyright problems; if the AfD determines that an article is appropriate here, it will need to be rewritten. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Hoax--Sodabottle (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2010 (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.