Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pimpladevi State

Pimpladevi State

[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)

There is no significant coverage in independent sources about the subject. The article relies unreliable sources of WP:RAJ. 🦅Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Asia, India, and Gujarat. Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So ? The Dang states are referenced on multiple pages on wikipedia, and are part of a larger overarching project to both extensively cover, standardize and organize the articles on Princeyl States in Gujarat.

To quote what I wrote on several articles about the Pandu Mehwas states:

"This article is part of my series of articles on the various Princely States in Gujarat, especially the Dang states amd the Pandu Mehwas . Potentially once all the states have been covered we can decide which ones meet the criteria of merging into some sort of overarching article on the Gujarat states, and we can debate where the cutoff point is, as even before I looked into it we have had articles for years on states just as small or even smaller and less populous. Like Varnoli Nani for example. Then the original links can work as redirects, if we decide to do that." Ummunmutamnag (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the Avchar article, the user here just asserts officialy released Goverment records are "unreliable", based on nothing, while citing as justification an essay which literally says it has not been vetted and does not represetn any official guidelines or policies.

You literally sent an unvetted opinion piece as justification for why records issued by the British Colonial Goverment should be automatically considered unreliable and deleting articles relying on citing them. Ummunmutamnag (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I move to remove the deletion tag from all three pages. You do not seem intereted in discussing anything, your reason is a subjective opinion which you back up via sharing a non vetted opinion piece, you ignore we have had articles on similar size or smaller states in Gujarat for years, etc. I'm sorry but I can't be bothered to check back several times a day if you maybe possibly respond to a single objection raised. Also the states are very much referenced in other sources, like "H H Or The Bathology Of Princes (1930)" by Kanhaalal Gauba, p. 303-304 https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.238361/page/n303/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.238361/page/n305/mode/2up Ummunmutamnag (talk) 11:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just a cursory search brings references to all three states targeted for deletion here in the following resources:

BK 353 -Gazetteer Of Bombay Presidency Vol 12 Khandesh, 597, 605-606

https://archive.org/details/1880GazetteerOfBombayPresidencyVol12Khandesh353D/page/616/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/1880GazetteerOfBombayPresidencyVol12Khandesh353D/page/624/mode/2up?view=theater

https://archive.org/details/1880GazetteerOfBombayPresidencyVol12Khandesh353D/page/626/mode/2up

The Imperial Gazetteer Of India Pardi To Pusad Vol Xx, 1908

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.284076/page/n149/mode/2up

British Enactments In Force In Indian States, 1930,p. 62

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.98302/page/n89/mode/2up

Quaid-i-Azam Papers First Series Vol 1 Part 2 ca. 1947, p. 142,

https://archive.org/details/qap-first-vol1-p2/page/n49/mode/2up

Imperial Gazetteer Of India Vol. XI Coondapoor To Edwardesabad, p. 147,