Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sewa Dynasty (2nd nomination)

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sewa Dynasty

[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 was subject to a prior AfD which closed with no consensus. I am having trouble determining that a legendary dynasty has any form of notability, and suggest that it fails WP:GNG. A thorough search has revealed may sites speaking of the dynasty, but a great many are user generated material, and cannot contribute to verifying any form of notability. I am unconvinced by the current pair of references. I believe that the article merits a correct and consensus based community decision, and request that a "no consensus" close be treated as an unhelpful outcome, and that a full consensus either way be created. It is my intent to notify participants at the prior AfD in a neutral manner that this discussion exists. I am not opposed to a merge to a relevant target as an outcome of this discussion, recongising that folklore has a place in an encyclopaedia. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have now left a neutral message on the talk pages of prior participants, inviting opinions here. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (disclosure, closer of prior AfD). Some of this is undoubtedly a language issue, but my BEFORE returned the same issues Timtrent raised. Unreliable sourcing and nothing in reliable sources to backup the notability of this alleged dynasty. My concern about a merger is how much of this appears to be OR, so do we have a valid and viable merger target? No objection to a merger if sourcing is identified. Star Mississippi 01:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sibi -- Dynasty articles normally consist of a list of rulers, but there is none. This article says nothing much that adds to the reference in that article. I am only not saying "merge" because I do not think there is anything that needs merging. Whether a ruler is notable will depend on what he did and how large an area he ruled. In the case of a dynasty, I would suggest the factors would include the size of the area ruled; and to what extent he was a local ruler under the authority of a higher ruler. The rajah of one village is likely to be NN, but the ruler of 100o villages probably would be. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have nothing to write apart from a line using questionable sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2022 (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.