Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tejo Mahalya
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. Perhaps this would be a useful redirect to Taj Mahal: The True Story (book), but there's no consensus here, so I leave that to the interested editors.--Kubigula (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Tejo Mahalya
Per WP:Fringe, WP:FORK and WP:UNDUE - the P.N. Oak theory can never be effectively supported "in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory" - Stephen Knapp isn't a reliable or independent source. It's an interesting idea - but without any academically accepted evidence it must remain a theory. An [RFC] has already been held to determine the weight that the idea should be given on the Taj Mahal article - this, and the Taj Mahal: The True Story (book) article both represent POV forking Joopercoopers (talk) 11:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Also, this is already more than adequately covered in Taj Mahal, P.N. Oak and Taj Mahal: The True Story (book). Paul B (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep : --Ne0Freedom 15:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- First of all, please inform yourself on what a conspiracy theory is.
- Second, you conveniently forgot to mention the convincing photos the book is based on.
- Third, describing the beliefs and opinions of minority as one of many "myths" is NOT "adequately covering" and certainly not NPOV, if any one even cares about that.
-
- Comment: There is already an article on the book. Your own comments clearly indicate that the article is a POV Fork. Paul B (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes - I'm a little concerned about this user's Hindu gods (no capital G?) for the same reason - would someone take a look for a second opinion (that's as opposed to the existing article Hindu deities - I think he should perhaps be using his userspace for this sort of thing. --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Has anyone noticed that the Maharajah Jai Singh mentioned in the article redirects to Jai Singh II of Amber who was apparently born 40 years after the completion of the Taj rather than Jai Singh I to whom the Mughal court chronicles refer to? Or is secret time travel also alleged? The redirect was another creation of this user - Shouldn't 'Maharajah Jai Singh' be a dab page? --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: There is already an article on the book. Your own comments clearly indicate that the article is a POV Fork. Paul B (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Too shallow too little notability --BozMo talk 15:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect Tejo Mahalya and Taj Mahal: The True Story (book) (which also does not have any independent references) to P.N. Oak. Mahalya needs to be changed to Mahalay? Doldrums (talk) 08:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete anything useful can be merged to Taj Mahal: The True Story (book), or P.N. Oak. Does not merit a page on its own. Noor Aalam (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2008 (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.
