332:
his honour. We are only using wikipedia as a medium to inform people about the history which is often lost in oblivion if not preserved. And I believe wikipedia should be the same. Its a platform for information and I am generously sharing information. I understand there are not a lot of articles about the kingdom due to the obscurity in the region during the
British Raj. But now there are attempts that are being made to preserve such history. I am a journalist myself and I have seen so many articles on princely states and estates but none of them are questioned or proposed for deletion. Kindly, go through my article and let me know if you think there is something that must be edited. But please its a humble request that you dont delete this page as I have worked for months, day and night, researching and writing this article.
449:(1939), which is an effort to reconstruct the medieval era history of the Sankara dynasty's rule by an author who, as the book's introduction notes, is "a scion of a Raj-family which once held independent authority in the Orissa Gadjaths; and he has now become a distinguished member of the present Jeypore, the old Nandapur, Maharaja family by marriage. His second son Sree Ramakrishna Deoas Yuvaraja of Jeypore, will,..., carry forward the Jeypore line into the new Self-governing Federated India."
644:, "if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Knowledge (XXG) article will not decrease the subject's notability." There definitly needs to be improvement to the article (at times is seems like closer to a geneology than history of a kingdom), there are many reliable, independent academic sources on the subject itself.
703:
state government website, which is entitled to as much respect as one from (say) Michigan. This is not from a parish council (which might be untrustworthy). Nevertheless, the article needs a vast amount of work; for example, the map is actually labelled
Northern Madras: it may show the princely state, but not obviously.
331:
Hello sir, The erstwhile kingdom of jeypore is of a great significance to the people of the particular place. Till the coastal city of
Vizagapatnam you can see the name and noble social works of the dynasty. The 25th king donated lands to keep the Andhra University running, there is a statue there in
702:
This is a horrid article, mostly about the present titular princes. However that is not a reason for deletion, but for improvement. If their UK equivalents are anything to go by, local history periodicals are a reliable source, but not necessarily
Internet-accessible. In one case, we have it on a
456:
Thus, even if one discounts their antiquity and obscure publishers, neither of these works are reliable independent sources that one can build an encyclopedic article upon; and, while they are of potential value as primary material to a scholar studying the area's history, they cannot and should not
436:
His
Highness the Maharajah, Sri Sri Sri Vikraima Deo, Azem, Mahalrajah, Yujadud Dowla, Mahabat Assar, Yedal Yemeenay, Salatnut, Samsamay, Killapathay, Islam Sri Jhadkhand Badusha, Maharajah of Jeypore, of the Solar Race, the possessor of a hilly tract, in the Vizagapatam District, is naturally mild
337:
And there are informations from both pre Raj era and post Raj era. If you have problems with raj era then i can delete the post raj era material. But the information is based on Kumar
Vidyadhar Singh's book Nandapur the forsaken kingdom, he was a learned writer, he researched through the royal
610:. The sources that I gave above confirm that this was at one time an independent state, and for even longer was semi-independent. The source described as "dubious" by Bishonen as being on a government website is written by a reader in history at
370:: we don't want you to delete post-raj material (in so far as there is any); that's the kind of material Indian historical articles want. Post-Raj sources, i. e. more modern sources, are the best, especially academic ones. KSB Singh's book
622:
dubious. These sources also contain plenty of information, so, if the current article has problems, it can be rewritten on their basis. Notability is an attribute of an article subject, not the current state of an article.
384:
for a detailed explanation of the many problems with Raj era sources? Pre-Raj sources are older still and it's very rarely they can be used. Could you please follow those links, now provided for the third time? Oh, and
211:
437:
and pacific like his father, possesses a quick apprehension and extensive capacity, evinces talents for business, and is no less distinguished for sobriety and decorum of deportment than for literary acquirements...
500:
Hello, I have deleted more material that used Raj sources. Now what is left is the geneological table and a few current and post 1947 details. Please do check and let me know if its still up for deletion.
661:
664:
Therefore, even if there are problems with the sourcing of the current article it is still notable enough to be an article (albeit one that requires significant revisions and review).
476:
that a proper encyclopedic article would read very differently from what we currently have. For anyone interested in undertaking that work, perhaps the place to start would be
164:
541:
is not a good argument. Official government websites are dubious, academic sources are preferred. Please sign your posts with five tildes, ~~~~ , so we know who's speaking.
205:
270:
290:
317:, but there is no sign of that article anywhere that I can find, so I still see a lack of reliable secondary sources giving significant coverage of the topic. --
590:
96:
111:
171:
423:
be notable. However, the current version is deeply problematic because of the sources it relies on. In particular, the main two sources used are:
137:
132:
527:
356:
141:
253:
for the problems with
British Raj sources. They should generally not be used, and certainly whole articles should never be based on them.
124:
91:
84:
17:
586:
is a 22-page academic paper published in 1995 about this kingdom, and "KANAK DURGA AND DASHERA IN JEYPORE - A HISTORICAL REVIEW" at
503:
And most of the princely state wiki pages are using Raj sources, I hope I see them deleted in the near future if thats your policy.
313:
I can find nothing but passing mentions of "the little kingdom of
Jeypore" using online searches. There is a trail that points to
226:
193:
649:
105:
101:
538:
746:
40:
615:
611:
187:
657:
559:
Four tildes (which was probably meant here) would be better, because it provides your user name and a time stamp.
690:
523:
352:
729:
712:
694:
673:
632:
602:
568:
549:
493:
397:
382:
360:
326:
302:
282:
262:
250:
66:
183:
477:
708:
128:
515:
472:
in
Western India) but there seems to be enough out there indicating that the subject itself may be notable
427:
344:
315:
Orissa
Historical Research Journal, 1992, B. Schnepel, "Origin and Consolidation of the Kingdom of Jeypore"
52:. Consensus is to keep with one editor suggesting tags for improvement. Appropriate tags have been placed.
628:
598:
564:
233:
589:
is a 7-page paper published by the Odisha State Museum in 2016. There are probably more sources found by
445:
742:
653:
507:
36:
686:
519:
367:
348:
489:
465:
219:
62:
587:
431:(1903), which is an outright hagiographical work. Its section on the then king of Jeypore begins:
704:
546:
394:
120:
72:
641:
199:
506:
this is an article published by the official government website of Odisha state in India. link
725:
669:
624:
594:
560:
80:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
741:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
374:
is from 1938, which means it's a Raj era book and should not be used. A really old book like
54:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
579:
682:
415:
408:
378:, from 1866, has even greater problems. Did you go to the links I and RexxS have offered,
376:
The Fifth Annual Report from the Select Committee on the Affairs of the East India Company
322:
298:
278:
258:
485:
58:
542:
390:
721:
665:
469:
457:
be read uncritically or used as sources on wikipedia . The remaining cited sources
158:
318:
294:
274:
254:
645:
478:
The Jungle Kings: Ethnohistorical Aspects of Politics and Ritual in Orissa
243:
379:
247:
508:
http://magazines.odisha.gov.in/Orissareview/2013/jun/engpdf/70-72.pdf
583:
481:
737:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
681:
based on the existence of sources this is not fake, and passes
464:
Searching for sources myself, I didn't find a ton (beware of
720:
in the basis of sources found by Phil Bridger and Zoozaz 1.
461:
of the article, only support some of its peripheral content.
593:
but I don't have the inclination to read through them now.
458:
154:
150:
146:
218:
242:
This article is based on unreliable sources from the
232:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
749:). No further edits should be made to this page.
289:Note: This discussion has been included in the
269:Note: This discussion has been included in the
640:. I agree with the previous commmenter. As per
434:
412:This article appears to be a good faith effort
8:
618:(took me a long time to load), so it is not
271:list of History-related deletion discussions
112:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
513:
342:
291:list of India-related deletion discussions
288:
268:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
616:a reasonably independent editorship
338:geneological books for information.
24:
428:The aristocracy of southern India
614:, and the journal seems to have
97:Introduction to deletion process
1:
700:Keep but tag for improvement
512:is this relevant at all ???
446:Nandapur: A Forsaken Kingdom
612:Vikram Dev College, Jeypore
409:Delete in its current state
372:Nandapur A Forsaken Kingdom
251:this noticeboard discussion
87:(AfD)? Read these primers!
766:
730:00:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
713:16:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
695:10:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
674:18:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
633:15:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
603:08:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
569:15:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
550:04:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
494:00:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
398:00:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
361:23:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
327:22:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
303:22:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
283:22:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
263:22:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
67:00:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
414:(though likely with some
739:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
459:in the current version
439:
85:Articles for deletion
539:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
366:You misunderstand,
55:(non-admin closure)
419:) and the subject
121:Kingdom of Jeypore
73:Kingdom of Jeypore
531:
518:comment added by
470:Kingdom of Jaipur
363:
347:comment added by
305:
285:
102:Guide to deletion
92:How to contribute
57:
757:
418:
316:
237:
236:
222:
174:
162:
144:
82:
53:
34:
765:
764:
760:
759:
758:
756:
755:
754:
753:
747:deletion review
687:Graeme Bartlett
584:10.2307/3034233
520:JeyporeRajMahal
413:
368:JeyporeRajMahal
349:JeyporeRajMahal
314:
179:
170:
135:
119:
116:
79:
76:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
763:
761:
752:
751:
733:
732:
715:
697:
676:
635:
605:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
554:
553:
533:
532:
510:
504:
501:
497:
496:
462:
453:
452:
451:
450:
442:
441:
440:
404:
403:
402:
401:
341:Kind Regards.
339:
334:
333:
329:
307:
306:
286:
240:
239:
176:
115:
114:
109:
99:
94:
77:
75:
70:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
762:
750:
748:
744:
740:
735:
734:
731:
727:
723:
719:
716:
714:
710:
706:
705:Peterkingiron
701:
698:
696:
692:
688:
684:
680:
677:
675:
671:
667:
663:
659:
655:
651:
647:
643:
639:
636:
634:
630:
626:
621:
617:
613:
609:
606:
604:
600:
596:
592:
588:
585:
581:
578:
577:
570:
566:
562:
558:
557:
556:
555:
551:
548:
544:
540:
537:
536:
535:
534:
529:
525:
521:
517:
511:
509:
505:
502:
499:
498:
495:
491:
487:
483:
479:
475:
471:
467:
463:
460:
455:
454:
448:
447:
443:
438:
433:
432:
430:
429:
425:
424:
422:
417:
411:
410:
406:
405:
399:
396:
392:
388:
383:
380:
377:
373:
369:
365:
364:
362:
358:
354:
350:
346:
340:
336:
335:
330:
328:
324:
320:
312:
309:
308:
304:
300:
296:
292:
287:
284:
280:
276:
272:
267:
266:
265:
264:
260:
256:
252:
248:
246:. Please see
245:
235:
231:
228:
225:
221:
217:
213:
210:
207:
204:
201:
198:
195:
192:
189:
185:
182:
181:Find sources:
177:
173:
169:
166:
160:
156:
152:
148:
143:
139:
134:
130:
126:
122:
118:
117:
113:
110:
107:
103:
100:
98:
95:
93:
90:
89:
88:
86:
81:
74:
71:
69:
68:
64:
60:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
738:
736:
717:
699:
678:
637:
625:Phil Bridger
619:
607:
595:Phil Bridger
561:Phil Bridger
514:— Preceding
473:
444:
435:
426:
420:
407:
386:
375:
371:
343:— Preceding
310:
241:
229:
223:
215:
208:
202:
196:
190:
180:
167:
78:
49:
47:
31:
28:
591:this search
468:related to
206:free images
466:false hits
416:COI issues
743:talk page
486:Abecedare
59:Sulfurboy
37:talk page
745:or in a
642:WP:CONTN
543:Bishonen
528:contribs
516:unsigned
391:Bishonen
357:contribs
345:unsigned
165:View log
106:glossary
39:or in a
722:Mccapra
666:Zoozaz1
311:Before:
244:Raj era
212:WP refs
200:scholar
138:protect
133:history
83:New to
683:WP:GNG
482:review
387:Delete
184:Google
142:delete
480:(see
319:RexxS
295:RexxS
275:RexxS
255:RexxS
227:JSTOR
188:books
172:Stats
159:views
151:watch
147:links
16:<
726:talk
718:Keep
709:talk
691:talk
679:Keep
670:talk
638:Keep
629:talk
608:Keep
599:talk
565:talk
547:tålk
524:talk
490:talk
395:tålk
381:and
353:talk
323:talk
299:talk
279:talk
259:talk
249:and
220:FENS
194:news
155:logs
129:talk
125:edit
63:talk
50:keep
672:)
620:too
580:doi
484:).
474:and
421:may
234:TWL
163:– (
728:)
711:)
693:)
685:.
660:,
656:,
652:,
648:,
631:)
601:)
567:)
545:|
530:)
526:•
492:)
393:|
389:.
359:)
355:•
325:)
301:)
293:.
281:)
273:.
261:)
214:)
157:|
153:|
149:|
145:|
140:|
136:|
131:|
127:|
65:)
724:(
707:(
689:(
668:(
662:5
658:4
654:3
650:2
646:1
627:(
597:(
582::
563:(
552:.
522:(
488:(
400:.
351:(
321:(
297:(
277:(
257:(
238:)
230:·
224:·
216:·
209:·
203:·
197:·
191:·
186:(
178:(
175:)
168:·
161:)
123:(
108:)
104:(
61:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.