Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghorewaha


 * 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. John254 00:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ghorewaha

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Author removed prod template. Likely non-notable people group; I could not find any reliable secondary sources.  Samuel  Tan  11:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions.   —Ism schism (talk) 12:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   —Ism schism (talk) 12:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - I found this page which contains a lengthy scan of something that looks like an old scholarly text. If the source could be identified, it might well serve as a reliable source for the article, but right now it's an unsourced mix of fact and folklore. Huon (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Change to weak keep per 206.193.226.51's search results. The article still needs lots of attention, though. Huon (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reliable secondary sources, as requested. I'm not going to expand it because I don't have the necessary context to do a good job of it, but as a group they seems notable. -206.193.226.51 (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.   —Ism schism (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.   —Ism schism (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep -- This is an article on an aspect of Indian history. My knowledge is insufficient to know how significant the subject is.  I assume that Huon's souurce is old enough to be out of copyright, becasue the present text seems to follow it closely in part.  The article needs considerable attention, but that suggests cleaning it up, not deleting it.  I am not concerned about the fact that the story seems to come in part from oral tradition ("folklore").  Tales from that source are potentially suitable for WP, and in some cases are the only historical sources avaiable in lands where termites destroy writtne records.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2008 (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.