Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ganesha 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 keep. A possible merge can be discussed on the article's talk page. Randykitty (talk) 09:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Ganesha dynasty

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I could not find any sources mentioning the dynasty. There is no dearth of sources on Raja Ganesha and his kingdom. However, I am yet to come across sources which characterize his rule as a "dynasty". I'll also support a redirect to Raja Ganesha if that's the consensus. << FR 08:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  << FR 08:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  << FR 08:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comments His reign wasn't very long but I am inclined to leave the article. Not a long of scholars have done much research into the period as far as I am aware, but I think having the article is better than not having it. Govvy (talk) 12:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes, sources do not directly state “dynasty”, but they clearly use “House of Raja Ganesha” to mention the 3 rulers from the dynasty. here, here, here, here, and many more. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC))
 * And here it clearly mentions “Raja Ganesha and his dynasty”. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC))


 * Merge to Raja Ganesha. We don't need two separate articles on this topic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge, per Kautilya3. At the moment, there is only a single sentence at Ganesha Dynasty that isn't also directly relevant to Raja Ganesha; all of the other material needs to be in the parent article for completeness in any case. Vanamonde (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Significantly covered by scholarly sources. Merging is not a practical option because the dynasty involved multiple notable rulers. Capitals00 (talk) 05:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that the topic is notable. But in WP:CFORK-based AfD's, the issue is whether there is enough new content in the new article to warrant its separate existence. By all means, add new content to the Raja Ganesha page, and when there is enough of it, then you can WP:SPINOUT. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Raja Ganesha did indeed pull the strings for much of the period of this short lived dynasty 3 member (per this - 1415-1433) dynasty. However, Jalaluddin Muhammad Shah (2) and Shamsuddin Ahmad Shah (3) are notable in their own right, and the dynasty - as a period of rule - is probably more notable than the founder (and puller of strings). We do have sources referring to the dynasty (and period), and the content here is not a fork of any of the individual rulers but rather glue that treats them as a trio. Icewhiz (talk) 07:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge, there is already an article Raja Ganesha Alex-h (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2019 (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.