Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tundak (Yadav) 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. North America1000 06:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Tundak (Yadav) dynasty

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No reliable sources confirm this dynasty existed. Google Books and Google Scholar produce a grand total of zero relevant hits. For an empire supposed to stretch from Delhi to Sri Lanka, I find this lack of any references whatsoever that are more reliable than a book about Yadavas published by Yadava Publications and authored by J.N.S.Yadav unlikely. At best the article does not provide enough context (such as dates) to identify the subject, at worst it's made up. Huon (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. /wiae  /tlk  04:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae  /tlk  04:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. The third source, "History of Yadavs", is mythological nonsense published by a caste organization. The second source, "Rise of hindustan", appears to be a mirror of an old version of the Wikipedia Yaduvanshi Ahirs article which has since been extensively rewritten. Both are clearly unreliable, which leaves the book about Yadavs, by a Mr Yadav, published by Yadava Publications. And while we can't see its contents, publications about castes written by caste members and published by caste organizations (like the publisher of source 3, which we can read) are notoriously bad sources - the caste organizations' purpose is usually to promote their caste and make them seem as important as they can in order to keep their profile high in the context of India's repressive caste discrimination culture, and not to provide accurate information. The book must, therefore, also been seen as unreliable without independent corroboration, and I can find none whatsoever. I get no Google hits on "Tundak dynasty" other than a couple of DuckDuck Go results which turn out to be Wikipedia pages, and nothing relevant for "Tundak" alone. There are hits on "Yadav dynasty" and "Yadava dynasty" but they appear to be about the Seuna (Yadava) dynasty. Google Books gives no hits on "Tundak dynasty" and nothing that appears to be relevant for "Tundak". It does give some for "Yadav dynasty" and "Yadava dynasty", but again they appear to be the other one. My suspicion is that this might be an attempt to write about a real dynasty which we already have under a different name (and on first glance, done properly with lots of sources), or an article about a fictitious dynasty. Either way, it has to go. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The cited sources don't seem to be reliable. If this political entity had actually existed reputable sources would evince that. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 11:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment -- A BlogSpot is certainly not RS. The third source is based on what is clearly mythical sources, but that does not make it inappropriate that we should have an article.  The dynasties template is clearly inappropriate, since the dynasty is not listed in it.  We are then left with a harmless stub.  I have been unable to see the Michigan source as google books blocks it for me.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Michigan" from the google books record is a reference to the library which had the copy scanned by google. This is the same Yadavas book, written by JNS Yadava and published by Yadava publications near Delhi, that was referred to in the previous comments. Suspicious as it may look, it does appear in the catalogues of respectable libraries. Uanfala (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as certainly questionable, the information and sources are convincing enough to keep thus this is best restarted when a better article is available. SwisterTwister   talk  21:59, 29 March 2016 (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.