Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jadeja royal family tree

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 lack of verifiability, reliable sources, and unencyclopedic nature of unannotated list of names were the key points brought up. --MCB 05:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jadeja royal family tree

This article is a family tree of a family with questionable notability. It is a contested prod, and the user who removed the prod template wrote in the edit summary: "deprod structured list of notable people". It is unreferenced, has never been properly wikified and has contained very little context since it was created (it currently has none whatsoever). Khatru2 00:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, Questioned notablity, questioned article, no sources, non-attractive, and in all honesty it is just a list of names of people whom most of us don't know about, However if we can have some strong external links and referances and a cleaner article Keep but for now Delete.--†hε þяínce öf ɒhaямa Talk to Me 02:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — The only relevant hit I find goes back to Wikipedia... -- lucasbfr talk 02:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete A1, A3, A7, or WP:SNOW. No context, very little content, and the family tree (kinda) of a barely notable clan of india. --Daniel Olsen 03:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    • You want to speedy delete this family tree of a non-notable clan which merely "ruled as kings and princes, dominating much of Kathiawar and Kutch in the present-day Indian state of Gujarat for several centuries" before anyone has a chance to dig out the context from the edit history, or the reference for the current version? Kappa 04:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unverified, questionable notability, and borders on patent nonsense and indiscriminate collection of information. 129.98.212.67 03:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The last entry, 168, Jam Raval, was the founder in 1540 of the princely state of Nawanagar, and is mentioned in that article, and is confirmed on a number of web sites, including numismatic. #147 the Ninth Century Jam Lakhaji (Lakho Ghuraro) and his son #148, Jam Unnadji, are discussed, for example, in the history of Kutch at [1]. The liniage is certainly notable. There are notable people along it. It does need work and explication. It would be nice to have proper references, the author indicated that his source was Kutch deshno itihash by Aatmaram Keshavji Dwivedi. Printed from "Nirnay sagar" Mumbai Samvat 1932; shake 1798. With my limited library and not speaking Hindi, I haven't been able to verify its existance. But the book The coinage of Kutch by Richard K Bright (1975), may provide additional verification. I have requested it on interlibrary loan. Bejnar 04:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete First of all, and I may be wrong about this, but Wikipedia is not supposed to be any sort of genealogical guide. Second of all, the 'tree' isn't really a tree, doesn't even seem to show marriage and the like. Third of all, none of the names offer links to articles or any context whatsoever. The 'article,' if you can call it that, isn't the least bit wikified. No explanation of relevance, no sources. --The Way 05:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment Point One. This article is not a genealogical guide. It is primarily a list of rulers, although it does have a genealogical component just as does the list of the rulers of the United Kingdom. Bejnar 18:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment Point Two. This is not a tree, despite the label. One needs to look at what it is, not what one thinks the label suggests it to be. This article needs work and constructive criticism. But its notability should be above challange.
Comment Point Three. This clearly needs work. However, when The Waywrote his comment the article did state its relevance at the beginning, as per Kappa above. That edit was at 04:36, 25 October 2006. Yes the article is not properly linked. It does need work as does most of the history of Kutch. That is not a reason to delete, it is a reason to pitch in and help. !Bejnar 18:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Maybe it needs to separate fact from fiction? It says the family was descended from Brahma. T REXspeak 10:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment There are at least a couple of ways to look at you comment. We should delete all fiction from the Wikipedia, or legendary ancestors require deletion, or as an anti-religious statement that decent from the creator, Brahma, must be fiction? Regardless, as argument for deletion, it would require deletion of the Japanese imperial family who are decended from the sun god. Rationally the need to separate fact from fiction is not a reason to delete entire articles. It may be a reason to work as an editor on an article. Bejnar 20:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment I meant it should probably be said that mythology says that they are descended from Brahma. The way it looks now is as if it is absolute fact. Legendary ancestors do not require deletion if they are verified as being legendary but if they are passed as legendary then that is confusing to the reader. Even so I doubt that Brahma is considered part of the Jadeja royal family in the same way as Queen Victoria is not considered part of many royal families in Europe except for the British royal family. They both had descendants in many royal families. T REXspeak 20:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment In addition to what Bejnar said, #169 Hardholji appears to have become the first king of Dhrol in around the same era. So this may make some sense if someone with knowledge of the subject bothered to seperate fact and fiction and create a proper article out of this. Tintin (talk) 10:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have moved this article to List of members of the Jadeja royal family to better reflect that it is a list and not a tree. I've also cleaned it up a bit. Some others here have apparently found some sources and additional information about these people, which should be added to the article. I'd say keep an list about a royal family in a part of the world that many Wikipedia editors know little about. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 16:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per ONUnicorn. Per WP:BIAS, Gujarati royals are as worthy of note as British royals. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Please do point me to a few articles about British royals which are as terrible as this article. Tintin (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment - It's somewhat easier to research British royals than Gujarati royals, especially for English speakers with internet access. This is one source of systemic bias. It isn't surprising that our English royal articles are better. Still, the subject is notable, the content verifiable, and this text, even if it is poor now, contains some information, and may be helpful to someone who wants to improve it. Not worthy of deletion IMO.- Smerdis of Tlön 20:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment I'm reconsidering my support for deletion... however, there are still significant problems with the article. First of all, it's just a list of names and the little blurb doesn't supply anywhere near enough context. The names certainly ALL need to be accompanied by the years in which that person rules. Also, any names which have articles of their own should link to that person's page. More context, years of leadership and article links... if it had these I'd support keeping it, especially because of Wikipedia's drive to rid itself of systemic bias. --The Way 18:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it improves drastically. A list of a few names is no encyclopaedia article. Tintin (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment can anyone verify this list? Are there any sources saying that Brahma (god) and Atri are members of this family? Ones in English would be most helpful, unless someone could translate them. T REXspeak 20:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete absolutely zero context -- ßottesiηi (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I am not able to see any Tree. There is only one poorly sourced list with no time span or other details.  Doctor Bruno  02:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    • So we should delete all articles which are lists, not trees? Kappa 03:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Please note what I have voted for other lists. A list is a list is a list and a tree is a tree is a tree. If you have an article titled list, it should be a list and if you have a article titled tree it should be a tree. Any how the list is poorly sourced  Doctor Bruno 
  • Strong Delete. I wonder those who've voted keep know who Vishnu, Brahma and others mentioned in the list are! utcursch | talk 11:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep is wikipedia based on evidence or prejudice? There are many opinions but looking at the evidence it points to keeping. --Mike 10:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I had a another look back and at one point the list was much better: [2] If you don't like the content why aren't people asking for it to be improved? As far as having an article the Gujarati they seem to have their own language Gujarati_language & literature, I think there is potentially a good article here and when the author is clearly struggling we should be spending more time helping and less time trying to delete it! --Mike 12:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Merge I knew there was something odd about this call for delete - I've tracked it back. The article is a link from Jadeja and in the earlier form as [3] it would make a very good addition to that article. I can see no debate there to suggest it was ousted from that page so why are we debating this? --Mike 12:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete- No external source or links are provided to verify the article. Nileena joseph 15:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. --  Doctor Bruno  02:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect until someone can find a reference which allows an adequate explanation of what this is and where it comes from. Kappa 01:29, 2 November 2006 (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.