Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jethwa 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 keep‎. It looks like the consensus is that Clean up, not Deletion is called for here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jethwa dynasty[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article is mostly based on untrustworthy Colonial Era sources (WP:RAJ) that are based on British-based work, assumptions or mythological beliefs and that are not allowed on Wikipedia please see WP:RAJ. This article requires extensive cleanup, or it should be redirected to the Jethwa clan page, where it should be addressed in the history section.I think this article does not meet the criteria for notability or should not be live on the main space for now. And this article should be redirected to the Jethwa clan page or moved to draft space as it is not ready for now to be live on the main space article. Here are many examples of WP:RAJ sources Please see Refrences no. [1], [3], [6], [8], [17], [26], [27],[28], [35], [36], [37] all are WP:RAJ era sources.Transe Ænd Danse (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, History, Royalty and nobility, Asia, India, and Rajasthan. Transe Ænd Danse (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:RAJ is an essay, not policy. That said, we should be able to balance out the concerns with more modern sources. And I'm not sure what you've got going on with the formatting errors, it's gone wonky. Oaktree b (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see guidelines for notability WP:RAJ.I have removed some Colonial Refrences from the article but still there are many you can see. Transe Ænd Danse (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did, it basically says not to source your article from old sources which have one way of thinking. So long as we can balance out with modern sources and present a rounded point of view, there is no concern. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b Oh, yikes - no, that's really not the case at all. You can't "balance out" these sources any more than you could write an article about Jewish history by using nazi history as the basis and balancing it out with more recent historians. It's more or less writing an article entirely based on primary sources that are prejudiced against the subject. -- asilvering (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ouch. My bad. Feel free to trout me again. Oaktree b (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! History is harder than it looks. :) Things vary by subfield, but in general it's good to be more skeptical of anything more than a few decades old, and anything from the 19th century or earlier is best left out unless you're really familiar with the material. -- asilvering (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - WP:RAJ does not apply here and if you see history of page WP:RAJ author Sitush has himself in past edited this page. As rightly said by Oaktree b WP:RAJ is an essay and not a policy - it is written that Raj era sources should be avoided in caste based articles but Raj era sources are valid for historical facts - if Raj era sources say Jethwas have their capital in Porbandar and it is a princely state with xyz area and xyz population - it is valid source. You are misdirected in this deletion and Jethwa dyansty is centuries old dynasty - further read WP:Before - before you nominate article for deletion. Jethwa dynasty covers all wikipedia requierments of The main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS). Porbandar State was ruled by Jethwa dynasty was a 13 Gun salute princely state under British Raj Jethwarp (talk) 03:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - your nomination argument itself clarifies your mindset you have nominated it with comment it reqiers clean up or redirect - now here only your deletion argument fails for clean up there are tags to be used or you can start clean up yourself with starting a topic on clean up in talk page. Secondly redirect to Jethwa argument is not valid as per me because Jethwa page is about surname used by many castes in India and this page is about a dynasty that ruled for over 1000 years over many parts of Saurashtra from Morbi to Porbandar. Again if you see history and talk page Sitush author of WP:Raj has in past been involved in discussion and editing of these both pages - Jethwarp (talk) 03:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Basing an AfD on WP:RAJ is questionable; basing this AfD on it is unreasonable.

First and foremost, it is not policy; it is as editor's opinion essay with zero constructive dialogue attached.
The essay is about the unreliability of British sources regarding castes due to a valid assumption that their inherent bias (the unassailable superiority of Englishmen over all 'inferior races' added to drive to legitimise the Raj itself) makes them unreliable.
1. This article isn't about caste or race, but about political history starting eleven centuries before the Raj.
2. Starting a discussion about a given source by positing that bias is valid and useful; ending it there for all such sources is neither. Setting the caste question aside, making a blanket statement that all British sources on all India-related subjects from that period share the same bias is fundamentally invalid. To go full ad Nazium, it is the same as saying that all mid-century German scholars were Nazis, thus they cannot be trusted on any subject at all. It is tarring with a ludicrously wide brush. Impugn the sources, not the generic society from which they come.
The nom discusses eleven sources out of thirty-seven. That puts this AfD unquestionably within WP:BATHWATER territory.

In short, there is simply no policy basis for this nomination. The subject clearly meets WP:GNG with SIGCOV and depths of sourcing. If those eleven sources need to be deprecated (which they well might; I haven't read them individually), fine. That still leaves two dozen sources and a well-written and encyclopaedic article that enhances Wikipedia. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I didn't update my explanation above, but the article seems mostly well sources, with a balance of old and more modern (1970s to present) sources. Oaktree b (talk) 01:22, 30 August 2023 (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.