Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magadha Kingdom (2nd nomination)


 * 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 and redirect to Magadha. The consensus is that the content doesn't belong &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  07:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Magadha Kingdom
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Extremely confusing content. Lack of verifiability. Doubts are casted within the article as who the king was. Completely unencyclopaedic, with no scope for improvement. Also, as per this discussion: Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. — usernamekiran (talk)  19:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  21:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as a duplicate or fork of Magadha. I'm not seeing any referenced material to merge. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- The Vedas and Mahabaratha fall into the realm of myth, rather than history, but that is no reason why we should not have an article on them. It is not or at least should not be a fork of the article on the modern place.  The fact that a related article is a mess is no reason for deletion.  Any issue as to lack of sourcing is irrelevant, since the Indian epic is a source in its own right.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I honestly tried my best to improve this article, but couldnt. If you have any ideas, please share them, we can still work on it. — usernamekiran (talk)  17:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * and de-tag The article is not a good one, but (contrary to the tags) it does not lack citations: there are textual ones to the Mahabaratha. It might be criticised for relying too much on primary sources, but that is no reason for deletion. I suspect the answer is that it needs attention from an expert. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The article doe not have any tags regarding citations. I dont call myself an expert on this topic, but i am very well knowledgeable. I dont have any issue with sources being primary. But the fact still remains the same, our article here is not an encyclopaedic one. Also, the mentions are trivial within the original scripture. — usernamekiran (talk)  19:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC) — usernamekiran (talk) (log) 17:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I was referring to a verification tag. These appear to be calling for verification of a kind that is wholly inappropriate to myth/legend.  The only verification possible is the citations of the epic, which is provided.  I agree that the structure is unsatisfactory, but suspect that the source does not permit more.  This is a common situation with ancient history and is difficult to get around.  I have seen tags of this kind, calling for more content, which are tantamount to inviting OR.  Peterkingiron (talk) 10:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * if the kingdom is mentioned trivially within the epic itself, doesnt it make the kingdom "not notable"? If not, lack of secondary or tertiary sources make it not notable. I think redirecting it to modern day Magadha, and adding this content in sections history, and "in mythology" would be the best option. — usernamekiran (talk)  14:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not know ancient Indian literature in detail and thus find it hard to say more. I must defer to your view, to merge/redirect, but this should be to the specific section suggested bit to the article generally,  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * as said in the discussion (link given above), my first priority was to improve the article. In the first go, I searched only online. When I couldn't find anything, I went for OR. I've studied Lord Vishnu in depth. As per my tradition, Lord Krishna is considered to be 9th avatar from the dashavatara, and a "purna-avatar" (total avatar?). So I've studied him in depth as well. As one can see in the photo, I've original (bare act) of geeta, a few Puranas; and then books with commentary on it. I don't have actual Mahabharta, but I do have commentary on it (no fiction/novels). All I found was passing references. And honestly speaking, I don't have material on Rama, and/or Ramayna. I have read it from libraries though. (Never liked Rama. He is supposed to be the perfect human, and yet he didn't accept his own wife even after she walked on fire to prove her fidelity/loyalty for him. Resulting her going "underground".) During that reading, I never came across Magadha's mention. It might be because I never studied it thoroughly, or maybe because it wasn't important enough to be included in the commentaries with major topics. I also didn't understand your last comment.   I have no idea how this skipped my mind, but we have an editor with deep study of Hinduism. Requesting your suggestions/opinions.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am withdrawing my original objection and suggesting that the merge target should be a "Mythology" section of Magadha. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect - soft delete by redirecting this mess to Magadha. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:50, 20 June 2017 (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.