Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhag Singha Purohit

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. The consensus is that it would be best to re-write the articles altogether, if reliable sources are ever found. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bhag Singha Purohit[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have no idea what this article's actually about; it appears to be a narrative story, and while there are a few book hits for close spellings, the exact spelling has no book hits. Even if someone else finds some sources, the article would require a complete rewrite. Shadowjams (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per below, I've nominated Bhai Singha Purohit, and included it in this debate. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bhai Singha Purohit, and then bring that article to AfD too. Delete Bhai Singha Purohit and Bhag Singha Purohit. Bhag Singha Purohit (also spelled as Bhai Singha Purohit) appears to have been a 17th cenury Sikh warrior. The article Bhag Singha Purohit is describing events in 17th century India relating to battles between Sikh forces and the Mughal Empire. However:

The prose style is fundamentally unencyclopedic.
The correct name of the individual appears to be "Bhai Singha Purohit" and an article by that name already exists, containing identical text.
Good faith Google searches for "Bhai Singha Purohit" turn up relevant results but none that appear to be "significant coverage in reliable independent sources" per WP:N.
~~The prose style makes me strongly suspect that it's a direct cut-and-paste from another text although I'm unable to identify the source.~~ It's a cut-and-paste from SikhWiki, and although it's apparently CCBY licenced I'm not entirely convinced that makes it acceptable to copy their text wholesale.

So, really, a lot of problems here. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have added an AFD nomination to Bhai Singha Purohit, and directed it here - and I would add it to this nomination so that we can have one debate on the merits of the content. No need to do this twice, and this debate began less than a day ago, so I don't think it unreasonable to combine the two nominations. As for my recommendation... UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as unencyclopedic content. I can't find sources for a notable topic of either title - though feel free to point me in the right direction, if such sources exist. If the articles are to be kept, then Bhag Singha Purohit should be the redirect - but I don't know how we would really justify that. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What is this supposed to be about. Completely nonsensical.Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Copied from SikhWiki; it can remain there until we gain sources. Shii (tock) 20:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.