Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magadha Kingdom

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. The arguments for keep are in my opinion sound policy, especially that by Peterkingdom. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magadha Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Relevance of the article. Article appears to mostly contain long quotes directly lifted from other sources. Not appropriate for Wikipedia Pinkfloyd11 (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Defer close (other than speedy- or snowball-closes) until 1 week after relevant WikiProjects have been contacted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Update Defer close until 7 days after 03:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC), which is when this was processed by DELSORT. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC) Update: The time period has expired. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Magadha and keep history, and post a note on Talk:Magadha inviting editors to move appropriate information to the main article or, if the topic of "kingdom of Magadha in Indian epic literature" is distinct enough from the historical kingdom of Magadha to warrant separate coverage and the topic in notable enough to qualify for a stand-alone article, to undo the redirect and replace the copied-from-other-public-domain-sources content replace the redirect with content that meets Wikipedia's editorial standards (which the current page lacks an encyclopedic tone and has other issues, but that's not a problem AFD should try to solve). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Update While I'm now convinced that the topic is notable, I am STILL recommending "redirect, discuss, rewrite using existing material" over "keep" or "keep and rewrite" even in light of comments made here as of the time of this comment. Also struck grammar error in earlier comment. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep I cannot believe such a historically notable subject would be nominated for deletion. Any serious encyclopaedia should cover this. In my view another case of WP:GEOBIAS. Afd is not a alternative to cleanups. AusLondonder (talk) 06:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply There is already an article on the historical kingdom of Magadha. This article is about the MYTHOLOGICAL kingdom of Magadha, as described in the Mahabharata and other Hindu works. It mostly consists of a list of where Magadha is mentioned in those scriptures. Other than a small blurb about Jarasandha, that is.Pinkfloyd11 (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep -- Whether the two great Indian epic sagas are history or mere myth is immaterial. The Mahabharata exists and is one of the great works of ancient literature. Even if it is mythical or even wholly fictional is certainly important enough for us to keep it. The historical kingdom is properly covered in a separate article. It may not be an ideal article; if so, it should be improved not deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2015 (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.