Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Jeypore


 * 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. Consensus is to keep with one editor suggesting tags for improvement. Appropriate tags have been placed. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Kingdom of Jeypore

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is based on unreliable sources from the Raj era. Please see and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_172#Are_British_Raj_ethnographers_unreliable? this noticeboard discussion] for the problems with British Raj sources. They should generally not be used, and certainly whole articles should never be based on them. RexxS (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. RexxS (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RexxS (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Before: I can find nothing but passing mentions of "the little kingdom of Jeypore" using online searches. There is a trail that points to, but there is no sign of that article anywhere that I can find, so I still see a lack of reliable secondary sources giving significant coverage of the topic. --RexxS (talk) 22:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello sir, The erstwhile kingdom of jeypore is of a great significance to the people of the particular place. Till the coastal city of Vizagapatnam you can see the name and noble social works of the dynasty. The 25th king donated lands to keep the Andhra University running, there is a statue there in his honour. We are only using wikipedia as a medium to inform people about the history which is often lost in oblivion if not preserved. And I believe wikipedia should be the same. Its a platform for information and I am generously sharing information. I understand there are not a lot of articles about the kingdom due to the obscurity in the region during the British Raj. But now there are attempts that are being made to preserve such history. I am a journalist myself and I have seen so many articles on princely states and estates but none of them are questioned or proposed for deletion. Kindly, go through my article and let me know if you think there is something that must be edited. But please its a humble request that you dont delete this page as I have worked for months, day and night, researching and writing this article.
 * And there are informations from both pre Raj era and post Raj era. If you have problems with raj era then i can delete the post raj era material. But the information is based on Kumar Vidyadhar Singh's book Nandapur the forsaken kingdom, he was a learned writer, he researched through the royal geneological books for information.
 * Kind Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeyporeRajMahal (talk • contribs) 23:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand, JeyporeRajMahal: we don't want you to delete post-raj material (in so far as there is any); that's the kind of material Indian historical articles want. Post-Raj sources, i. e. more modern sources, are the best, especially academic ones. KSB Singh's book Nandapur A Forsaken Kingdom is from 1938, which means it's a Raj era book and should not be used. A really old book like The Fifth Annual Report from the Select Committee on the Affairs of the East India Company, from 1866, has even greater problems. Did you go to the links I and RexxS have offered, and  for a detailed explanation of the many problems with Raj era sources? Pre-Raj sources are older still and it's very rarely they can be used. Could you please follow those links, now provided for the third time? Oh, and Delete. Bishonen &#124; tålk 00:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC).


 * Delete in its current state This article appears to be a good faith effort (though likely with some COI issues) and the subject may be notable. However, the current version is deeply problematic because of the sources it relies on. In particular, the main two sources used are:
 * The aristocracy of southern India (1903), which is an outright hagiographical work. Its section on the then king of Jeypore begins:
 * "His Highness the Maharajah, Sri Sri Sri Vikraima Deo, Azem, Mahalrajah, Yujadud Dowla, Mahabat Assar, Yedal Yemeenay, Salatnut, Samsamay, Killapathay, Islam Sri Jhadkhand Badusha, Maharajah of Jeypore, of the Solar Race, the possessor of a hilly tract, in the Vizagapatam District, is naturally mild and pacific like his father, possesses a quick apprehension and extensive capacity, evinces talents for business, and is no less distinguished for sobriety and decorum of deportment than for literary acquirements..."


 * Nandapur: A Forsaken Kingdom (1939), which is an effort to reconstruct the medieval era history of the Sankara dynasty's rule by an author who, as the book's introduction notes, is "a scion of a Raj-family which once held independent authority in the Orissa Gadjaths; and he has now become a distinguished member of the present Jeypore, the old Nandapur, Maharaja family by marriage. His second son Sree Ramakrishna Deoas Yuvaraja of Jeypore, will,..., carry forward the Jeypore line into the new Self-governing Federated India."
 * Thus, even if one discounts their antiquity and obscure publishers, neither of these works are reliable independent sources that one can build an encyclopedic article upon; and, while they are of potential value as primary material to a scholar studying the area's history, they cannot and should not be read uncritically or used as sources on wikipedia . The remaining cited sources in the current version of the article, only support some of its peripheral content.
 * Searching for sources myself, I didn't find a ton (beware of false hits related to Kingdom of Jaipur in Western India) but there seems to be enough out there indicating that the subject itself may be notable and that a proper encyclopedic article would read very differently from what we currently have. For anyone interested in undertaking that work, perhaps the place to start would be The Jungle Kings: Ethnohistorical Aspects of Politics and Ritual in Orissa (see review). Abecedare (talk) 00:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello, I have deleted more material that used Raj sources. Now what is left is the geneological table and a few current and post 1947 details. Please do check and let me know if its still up for deletion.
 * And most of the princely state wiki pages are using Raj sources, I hope I see them deleted in the near future if thats your policy.
 * this is an article published by the official government website of Odisha state in India. link http://magazines.odisha.gov.in/Orissareview/2013/jun/engpdf/70-72.pdf
 * is this relevant at all ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeyporeRajMahal (talk • contribs)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument. Official government websites are dubious, academic sources are preferred. Please sign your posts with five tildes, ~, so we know who's speaking. Bishonen &#124; tålk 04:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC).
 * Four tildes (which was probably meant here) would be better, because it provides your user name and a time stamp. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * is a 22-page academic paper published in 1995 about this kingdom, and "KANAK DURGA AND DASHERA IN JEYPORE - A HISTORICAL REVIEW" at is a 7-page paper published by the Odisha State Museum in 2016. There are probably more sources found by this search but I don't have the inclination to read through them now. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources that I gave above confirm that this was at one time an independent state, and for even longer was semi-independent. The source described as "dubious" by Bishonen as being on a government website is written by a reader in history at Vikram Dev College, Jeypore, and the journal seems to have a reasonably independent editorship (took me a long time to load), so it is not too dubious. These sources also contain plenty of information, so, if the current article has problems, it can be rewritten on their basis. Notability is an attribute of an article subject, not the current state of an article. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with the previous commmenter. As per WP:CONTN, "if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." There definitly needs to be improvement to the article (at times is seems like closer to a geneology than history of a kingdom), there are many reliable, independent academic sources on the subject itself. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Therefore, even if there are problems with the sourcing of the current article it is still notable enough to be an article (albeit one that requires significant revisions and review). Zoozaz1 (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the existence of sources this is not fake, and passes WP:GNG. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep but tag for improvement This is a horrid article, mostly about the present titular princes. However that is not a reason for deletion, but for improvement.  If their UK equivalents are anything to go by, local history periodicals are a reliable source, but not necessarily Internet-accessible.  In one case, we have it on a state government website, which is entitled to as much respect as one from (say) Michigan.  This is not from a parish council (which might be untrustworthy).  Nevertheless, the article needs a vast amount of work; for example, the map is actually labelled Northern Madras: it may show the princely state, but not obviously.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep in the basis of sources found by Phil Bridger and Zoozaz 1. Mccapra (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2020 (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.