Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gopala 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. (non-admin closure) Ashley yoursmile! 06:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gopala 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)

I see the existence of few source for the topic but, it is unreachable and as per the history of page it seems that only sockpuppets are editing this article. Due to inaccessibility of the source, rhe POV violation is at peak and article in its initial version when not edited by sockpuppets is in terrible condition. It's not worthy of inclusion in encyclopedia untill an editor who is aware our policies writes it using good sources to serve the encyclopedia. Heba Aisha (talk) 10:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To the reviewing admin: Don't confuse it with Pala Empire. It is yet another dynasty (unheard for me, though I am a M.A(history)). Simple google search gives only result about Pala empire and it donot comes except in poor quality websites, which are non historical and donot fulfill WP:HSC. Heba Aisha (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Heba Aisha (talk) 10:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep three scholarly sources found in English at 1, 2 and 3. Unable to search in Hindi. Mccapra (talk) 12:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I added some sources to the article. The history of this article is interesting; it seemed to had reliable sources, then deleted by and added and deleted.....and bringing it to the current POOR state and finally this deletion discussion. It's pathetic. Someone brave should restore the old version.nirmal (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)was[reply]

-Only those, who has little competency and is aware of the topic. Its related to caste article and many has done WP:POV violating edits here. Heba Aisha (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-Someone brave has reverted it to the pervious version. Thanks. I think its fine and good, although I doubt about the list of Rulers because there is no inline references. I will assume WP:GOODFAITH for now. @Heba Aisha:-Can you specific where did you see violation of WP:POV in this restored version?nirmal (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it looks good now though maybe there is something about those sources that Heba Aisha knows is suspect.Mccapra (talk) 09:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See, the major contributer to this article has been blocked for sockpuppetry. They with their sockpuppet accounts were active on a large number of Yadav related pages. Basically, the disruptive edits include finding pseudo historical origin theory of Yadavs. Thats was my only concern. Anyone who is knowledgeable in Nepal related stuff can express their view.Heba Aisha (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, hopefully nominator's concerns were addressed and the POV dispute of the content is comparatively in a better state now. Since the rationale did not question notability, keep is my vote. Chirota (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No it should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrishni (talk • contribs) 07:21, 24 April 2021 (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.