Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ror 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 delete. ✗ plicit  13:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Ror dynasty

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG. Not a single reliable scholar discusses the subject. The article confuses history with mythology of epic cycles. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. The sources largely seem to fail verification.  Ref #1 on the opening sentence which supposedly establishes Ror existence and notability as a powerful dynasty fails to mention "Ror" anywhere.  Ref #2 is either broken or fake.  It goes to a page on an entirely different subject.  Ref #9 (now ref #10, Singh), which is cited to the list of Ror rulers, is marked as self-published, but I can't even find evidence of the book's existence.  This does not seem to be the sort of work that fits with Pal Publications usual titles.  Ref #5 is a scholarly book, but a gbooks search (admittedly not always perfect) fails to find any of "Rudrayan", "Shikhandi", or "sandstorm" which all appear in the sentence being cited.  The source does say that Roruka was abandoned and is now buried in sand, but that's a long way from the claim that it was destroyed in a sandstorm, and goes nowhere with establishing the Ror dynasty as a real thing.  I really can't be asked to check any more – I might reconsider my position if someone can point to a slam dunk source proving existence, but even then there is a strong WP:TNT case on this one. SpinningSpark 15:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The talk page makes for fascinating reading ~ TrangaBellam (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The newly added ref #9 (Historum) appears to be a copy of an earlier version of the Wikipedia article. SpinningSpark 17:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment -- In dealing with a subject such as this, I have to ask: Is it true? and Is it important? If the answer to both is "yes", we should be keeping it but tagging it for verification.  Wikipedia mirrors cannot be allowed as references.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The approach is quite illuminating. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT if not for anything else. There is no adequately cited material in the article, if this even existed, it'd need a complete rewrite. I'd rather not have potential hoaxes floating around here. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 22:56, 12 September 2021 (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.