| Revision as of 18:49, 21 May 2024 editFeniles (talk | contribs)16 edits →Rajput Mughal marriage alliancesTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:11, 22 May 2024 edit undoRatnahastin (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers16,377 edits →Rajput Mughal marriage alliancesNext edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| ::You are comparing a GA article with a poorly written article that mainly relies on ] ] and fails to establish notability. <span style="font-family:'Forte';">] (])</span> 10:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC) | ::You are comparing a GA article with a poorly written article that mainly relies on ] ] and fails to establish notability. <span style="font-family:'Forte';">] (])</span> 10:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::: "Poorly written" is totally irrelevant at AFD. Also only a fraction of the sources are primary and more than half do not date from the RAJ. The fact that you link "unreliable" to PRIMARY suggests that you don't understand either. This article needs a good clean-up, that's all, as the topic is obviously significant. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC) | ::: "Poorly written" is totally irrelevant at AFD. Also only a fraction of the sources are primary and more than half do not date from the RAJ. The fact that you link "unreliable" to PRIMARY suggests that you don't understand either. This article needs a good clean-up, that's all, as the topic is obviously significant. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep'''.This is a good article based on ]. I don't think so this article should be deleted because it has more than 53 ] produced by various independent writers. It would be a significant loss if this article were deleted since it may require copyediting but not deletion, practically all sources are reputable, and the article fits the ]. The ] were a significant occurrence in Indian history during the 16th and 17th century so it should remain on 💕.] (]) | *'''Keep'''.This is a good article based on ]. I don't think so this article should be deleted because it has more than 53 ] produced by various independent writers. It would be a significant loss if this article were deleted since it may require copyediting but not deletion, practically all sources are reputable, and the article fits the ]. The ] were a significant occurrence in Indian history during the 16th and 17th century so it should remain on 💕.] (])<small>— ] (]) has made ] outside this topic. </small> | ||
| *'''Delete''' ] at best. I don't see any need for having an article on this subject. ] (]) 13:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' ] at best. I don't see any need for having an article on this subject. ] (]) 13:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' Full of ] and ] mess. There was no such thing as "Rajput-Mughal marriage alliances" in the cited sources. ] (]) 06:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' Full of ] and ] mess. There was no such thing as "Rajput-Mughal marriage alliances" in the cited sources. ] (]) 06:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC) | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| *'''Delete''' I mainly see it as a fork of various articles. I don't believe a merge would be needed. ] (]) 13:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' I mainly see it as a fork of various articles. I don't believe a merge would be needed. ] (]) 13:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep'''. Clearly pass ] Most sources are reliable and meet the criteria of ], as most of the references are written by notable individual authors, viz., Jayashree Vivekanandan (senior research associate), Barbara Ramusack, Satish Chandra (historian), David O. Morgan (historian), and some others.] (]) | *'''Keep'''. Clearly pass ] Most sources are reliable and meet the criteria of ], as most of the references are written by notable individual authors, viz., Jayashree Vivekanandan (senior research associate), Barbara Ramusack, Satish Chandra (historian), David O. Morgan (historian), and some others.] (])<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small> | ||
Revision as of 02:11, 22 May 2024
Rajput Mughal marriage alliances
AfDs for this article:- Articles for deletion/Rajput Mughal marriage alliances
- Articles for deletion/Rajput Mughal marriage alliances (2nd nomination)
New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- How to contribute
- Introduction to deletion process
- Guide to deletion (glossary)
- Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
- Rajput Mughal marriage alliances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:OR written to promote a POV. The topic itself is not notable that it would need a separate article.Ratnahastin (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. It isn't well written and could use a more analytic overview, but the large number of sources is more than enough to establish notability. Marriages were an important aspect of diplomacy in many countries, as shown in Royal intermarriage. Zero 09:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- You are comparing a GA article with a poorly written article that mainly relies on outdated unreliable sources and fails to establish notability. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- "Poorly written" is totally irrelevant at AFD. Also only a fraction of the sources are primary and more than half do not date from the RAJ. The fact that you link "unreliable" to PRIMARY suggests that you don't understand either. This article needs a good clean-up, that's all, as the topic is obviously significant. Zero 12:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- You are comparing a GA article with a poorly written article that mainly relies on outdated unreliable sources and fails to establish notability. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep.This is a good article based on NPOV. I don't think so this article should be deleted because it has more than 53 reliable sources produced by various independent writers. It would be a significant loss if this article were deleted since it may require copyediting but not deletion, practically all sources are reputable, and the article fits the general notability criterion. The Mughal Rajput marital partnerships were a significant occurrence in Indian history during the 16th and 17th century so it should remain on 💕.2404:3100:188E:2F21:1:0:94AA:65C8 (talk)— 2404:3100:188E:2F21:1:0:94AA:65C8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete WP:SYNTH at best. I don't see any need for having an article on this subject. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Full of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH mess. There was no such thing as "Rajput-Mughal marriage alliances" in the cited sources. Based Kashmiri (talk) 06:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Not denying that these marriages didn't happen, but the topic is not notable. Lorstaking (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge to Mughal Empire. Some reliable sources on the page from John F. Richards (historian), Ruby Lal (historian), Bonnie G. Smith (historian), Jayashree Vivekanandan (senior research associate), Barbara Ramusack, Satish Chandra (historian), David O. Morgan (historian), Anthony Reid (historian) and few others help with verification of the content on the page. Passes WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 12:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I mainly see it as a fork of various articles. I don't believe a merge would be needed. Srijanx22 (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly pass WP:GNG Most sources are reliable and meet the criteria of notability, as most of the references are written by notable individual authors, viz., Jayashree Vivekanandan (senior research associate), Barbara Ramusack, Satish Chandra (historian), David O. Morgan (historian), and some others.Feniles (talk)— Feniles (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.