Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koch Rajbongshi Royal Family

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. Nobody has actually argued for keeping, and the merge argument has problems, as indicated below. It seems therefore that there is a consensus (albeit not a very striking consensus) for deletion. however, any doubt whatever has been removed by the discovery that the article is a straight copyright infringement of "Kochbiharer Itihas", by Shri. Hemanta Kumar Rai Barma.

Koch Rajbongshi Royal Family

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

First, this article doesn't include any inline references. Second article has very little text related to the royal family. Whole article seems like original research or copied from somewhere. If there is anything notable about this topic, then it needs to be re-written from scratch. The lead section appears to be copied from http://www.coochbehar.gov.in/Htmfiles/royal_history.html#royal_dynasty Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 11:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As it stands, it clearly fails WP:V. Google Books search suggest the topic may be notable, but unless it is properly referenced, I am leaning towards delete as OR/V violation. There may also be copyvio concerns, as Vigyani notes w/ regards to copying from sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What is described in this article that is not described in Cooch Behar and Koch Rajbongshi people? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 20:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or TNT: Despite its name, the article describes the Koch Rajbongshi people, which is already described in the rather poor, but at least minimally sourced article of that name. A few quick searches on Google Books bring up many reliable-seeming sources that show the subject's notability and could easily substantiate the core parts of the article. However, please the note the large variety of spellings: every possible combination of Raj(b/v)(a/o)n(g/ø)s(h/ø)i, with or without 'Koch'. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- More comments:
  - "Royal family" is apparently a literal translation of "Rajbongshi"
    - For the actual family, see Koch dynasty.
  - See also the duplicate (stub, but more coherent) article Rajbanshi.
  - See also Rangpuri language. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here is a rather good source, for example: [1] הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks Hasirpad for digging up sources. I had also noted the overlap with similar related articles and asked for help at WP India noticeboard. This is particular doing of a user Surjits (also Surjits12, same user), who has copied large chunks of text from various sources and pasted in many related WP articles. I had cleaned up a bit before nominating this at AfD. I think all these articles i.e. Rajbanshi, Koch dynasty and Koch Rajbongshi people describes the same content and should be merged into one, maybe Koch dynasty. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 01:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, except that your suggestion of merging to Koch dynasty is a bit of a problem—the majority of the content of the articles refers to a people/ethnicity, not their historic rulers. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - hmm, you are right. But in that case an article about people under whatever title will also need lot of cleanup due to similar reason of copyvio's . --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 02:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 16:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Clearly fails WP:V. my search this subject may be have some references as a part of other subjects, I am leaning towards delete. --Nlfestival (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2013 (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.