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 Keep and move to Rai Sahiras II. (non-admin closure) Mdann52 (talk) 13:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Siharus[edit]

Siharus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article is one line stub, w/o any citation. Seems to some insignificant person in History of Sindh. I propose a delete. Jethwarp (talk) 06:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jethwarp (talk) 06:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jethwarp (talk) 06:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Jethwarp (talk) 06:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I added a reference to verify the information there but it is by no means significant coverage and I couldn't find anything more substantive. Stalwart111 09:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree with the above. There's not enough information here to warrant inclusion. Kabirat (talk) 12:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - While the article does not make the fact entirely clear, the intended subject is apparently one of the Rai dynasty rulers of Sindh (probably the one listed as Sahiras II in that article) - and we usually do keep articles about heads of independent states. The couple of things that make me hesitate about voting !keep are firstly that, while sources can be found (particularly if one varies the spelling - Siharas and Sahiras seem to be likely alternatives), most of them are at least several decades old and all seem effectively to depend for their few facts on one Arab or Persian chronicle from several generations after the subject's lifetime, and secondly that the article currently says very little and the title is quite possibly, while a valid spelling of the subject's name, one of the less common variants. PWilkinson (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered too, if the Rai Sahiras II mentioned at Rai dynasty was, in fact, the Siharus in question. A mix-up of vowel-sounds does not seem beyond the realm of possibility - Sahiras or Siharus - but I could find nothing to verify that they were one in the same. But the fact that you had the same concerns is enough for me to change my opinion above to neutral. I'm not comfortable with the idea that we might be deleting an article about a genuine historical head of state. I'm going to have more of a look. Stalwart111 23:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have found this text which suggests Rai Sahiras II and Siharus are in fact the same person - the second-last ruler of the Rai Dynasty who died in battle and was succeeded by his son, Raja Sahasi II. I have moved Raja Sahasi II to Rai Sahasi II. My suggestion now is that Siharus be moved to Rai Sahiras II and expanded with the reference above and books like this.

• Keep and move to Rai Sahiras II. Stalwart111 00:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to Rai Sahiras II. Passes WP:POLITICIAN.--Staberinde (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In view of above info it seems that Siharus was father of Rai Sahasi II as is also mentioned in Rai Sahasi II article ...as did his father Siharus. However, if that is the fact Siharus can be redirected to it. But one line article on subject is neither maintainable nor expandable, so I would agree to redirect to Rai Dynasty or Rai Sahasi II. Jethwarp (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, though as a head of state in his own right he would pass WP:POLITICIAN. The article can be expanded a little bit but he may be destined for perpetual stub-dom. Stalwart111 22:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Rai_Dynasty#Chronology_of_Rai_rulers_of_Sindh already mentions about Siharus and therefore should better be redirected to it.Jethwarp (talk) 06:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean - if the subject passes our notability guidelines then the article should be kept. Why would we then need a redirect to Rai Dynasty? Are you suggesting it should still be deleted because it is a stub? Stalwart111 09:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply).. What I was trying to say is that Siharus article is unwanted fork (WP:CFORK) of Rai Dynasty article. Where in the two lines mentioned in Siharus article are already mentioned. So it is better that it is redirected to Rai Dyansty.Jethwarp (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't see your reply until now. I get where you're coming from. I have no great objection to a merge/redirect, I just think the article has potential for expansion. He (by whatever name) is obviously notable enough for inclusion and the occasional stub doesn't hurt. But if people think having everything in one place is cleaner then I can live with that too. Stalwart111 08:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment - recently, I have been perusing and revising articles spun off from the Chach Nama (the Arab-Persian chronicle you referenced above). I think it would be optimal to try to get some RS that could certify the info contained in the articles, as I feel the subjects are of relative importance and that the topic is quite interesting. dci | TALK 17:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am personally okay with merging this to Rai Dynasty too. I don't see urgent need to have separate stub if all information can be included in article about dynasty.--Staberinde (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I included this list on this list at the new task force, and I think that improvement or expansion may come as a result of activity here. Perhaps it's worth keeping this article intact, and not as a redirect, for the time being? dci | TALK 01:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with that, neither option is really wrong, just merge is imo aesthetically superior to having two line stub. But obviously if someone somewhere manages to find suitable sources and expand that stub, then it would be even better.--Staberinde (talk) 08:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also merge/redirect can be always done later, with no need to start a new AfD.--Staberinde (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (and move, per above). Absolutely no reason for deletion and clearly notable, even if there isn't a lot of detailed info on him. Some articles, given their subject's definite notability but shallow source pools, will always be stubs. dci | TALK 04:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I will not dissent from the consensus above. I was going to suggest a redirect to Rai Dynasty. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:51, 4 March 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.