Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazargunj

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 Draftify. Tone 12:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nazargunj

[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)

Fails WP:GNG, most citations are either fake or contain passing reference. Also spam and advertisement websites are used, see here:

[1] this is a tourism advertisement website.
[2], this talks about Darjeeling tea, and why its here, disgusting.
[3], this is some caste website, non independent poor source.
[4], it mention in only one or two sentence, not the estate but a person and word Nazarganj is used, so editor has put it as source.
[5], someone has google searched and this book has one result for Gope and they used it as source. The article is a personal opinion and fake citations are used. Reviewing admin could also check. Also google search donot give extensive quality source.
[6], this has a passing mention, but not enough for separate article. As I suggested in my previous nomination, one article containing all such minor estate had been a good idea. Heba Aisha (talk) 08:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Heba Aisha (talk) 08:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page “Nazargunj” should be deleted as it suffers from a host of inaccuracies and repeat edits from the same Unreliable sources. As the original Author of this page, over the years I have attempted to correct and keep the content objective while welcoming any genuine additions to the subject.
However, it seems to suffer from repeated attempts to rewrite history and make links to Yadavs (who are not relations of any sort and have different last names to the Nazargunj family (lall chaudhuri) anyway.
Another edit puts repeated emphasis on a meeting organised to host Gandhi but the editor then drifts off to detail that event with incredibly poor grammar. It seems to lose focus on the article subject of Nazargunj while also deleting other objectively sourced points on the Raja of Nazargunj himself.
The pictures on Wikipedia have been uploaded without permission and are photos of photos so low quality or from websites of a current day hotel, which was formerly a building in Darjeeling known as Nazargunj House.
For factual evidence or historical Checks please refer to www.rajaofnazargunj.com
It also refers to authentic and credible sources so may be of use to settle any potential disputes. (moved ip (92.18.72.76) words from top of this afd to here so entries are in the correct order. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Comment - Heba aisha ji as ip user above has mentioned a website raja of nazurganj Com. I checked it some sources were present there but as a new comer I don't have idea whether sources are reliable or not so you should check it once if you find it, suitable you can add it, some images were also present. Himanshu Kushwaha Blocked for sockpuppetry. Heba Aisha (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Seems like a good topic and may be some interested users can improve this. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 23:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify -- An article on a princely state with a population of 180,000 is potentially viable, if reliable sources can be provided. However, if the state existed from the 14th century until 1940s, a lot more of its history is needed. We certainly cannot keep the present article as it is. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above.--Ankit (Talk with me) 22:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, needs better sources.PrisonerB (talk) 11:02, 5 May 2021 (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.