Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Principality of Pataliputra

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. asilvering (talk) 06:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Pataliputra

[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)

"Principality of Pataliputra" is an unsourced term and the content of this article is about the city for which we already have an excellent article Pataliputra. This article appears to be a POV fork of that article, primarily designed to push the idea of a continuity between mythology (the Magadha kingdoms described in Hindu mythological texts) and history (the Mauryas) RegentsPark (comment) 16:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. RegentsPark (comment) 16:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark I am unable to understand wha is your argument of of Mythological Hindu Magadha Kingdom and Mauryas since this article is related to none of them its about a polity that existed after fall of Kanvas and until rise of Guptas. Edasf «Talk» 13:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, all your argumetns are wrong
- The article is not about the city
- The article is not about any mythological kingdom
- The article is not a POV fork, as i took nothing from city article and it is not related to it.

JingJongPascal (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing any significant coverage of the article subject in the sources provided; seems to be largely WP:SYNTH. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources for the magadha between kanvas and guptas is very scarce. But as per wiki guidelines, even if a article is not big or long , it doesn't mean it should be deleted WP:Stub JingJongPascal (talk) 08:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per the first source in the article, after kanvas got defeated. Magadha became a principality centred around Pataliputra.

And according to same source, "Gupta's restored magadha to an dominant power again"

So the interval between kanvas and guptas , magadha was a principality. JingJongPascal (talk) 08:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of that original research matters JingJongPascal. If there is not significant coverage in reliable sources, the article is not notable enough for Wikipedia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't original research.

My sources clearly states that Magadha reduced to a principality around Pataliputra.

And it was ruled until gupta empire JingJongPascal (talk) 13:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I refer you to the second sentence of my recent comment. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Airship. Can't see anything salvageable from this article, sorry. Coeusin (talk) 09:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per wiki guidelines, an article is not judged by its content but by the content it has the potentional for. Just because the article doesn't have important points doesn't makes the article "less salvageable",

WITHOUT this article , we are missing nearly a 300 year gap between Magadhan Empire and Gupta Empire (rulers of Magadha).

This principality was ruled by pre-imperial gupta kings. It has very less sources for it, as the info is very scarce. (Mentioned in article with proper sources mentioning that records are less).

WP:STUB JingJongPascal (talk) 10:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Jingjongs arguments quit fine and fills the 300 year gap.Edasf «Talk» 07:24, 24 November 2024 (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.