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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Gujarat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I cannot find many sources that refer to a "Kingdom of Gujarat" that consists of the Chaulukya dynasty and Vaghela dynasty as one polity separate from what came before or after it. This article seems to be a WP:POVFORK of those 2 dynasties' articles, and adds no new information. The creator of the article, PadFoot , actually removed content from those articles, without consensus or at least a discussion, to create this article. AlvaKedak (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, India, and Gujarat. AlvaKedak (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nomination, "Kingdom of Gujarat" flops under WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search digs up nothing independent or significant, its just a POV-fork article of Chaulukya dynasty & Vaghela dynasty without any prior discussion. Total trash per WP:CFORK, no point keeping this mess around. NXcrypto Message 06:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• And yet the sources cited do check out. I checked the very first one, and it does indeed say on page 311 that there was a Kingdom of Gujarat founded by Mularaja and lasting until 1298.

  Random history books such as Allied Publisher's Indian History yes in fact do have the Chalukyas and the Vaghelas as one thing from 950 to 1300 when it was annexed to the Sultanate of Delhi. That's in its Chronology at the start of the book, and later it says that Alauddin's "first major conquest was of the rich kingdom of Gujarat, which was then ruled by the Vaghela (Chalukya or Solanki) king Karna."

  Likewise The Groundwork of Indian History (Chuckervertty, Chatterjee: "[…] the Chaulukya and Vaghela kingdom of Gujarat"), The Story of Early Indian Civilization (Longmans: "[…] finally annexed to the Sultanate in 1297. Thus ended Hindu rule in the kingdom of Gujarat"), and others. I was slightly concerned about Raj-era sourcing until I started turning up 21st century books such as Schmidt's An Atlas and Survey of South Asian History which says that the Delhi Sultanate under Alauddin "conquered several neighbouring, independent kingdoms. The kingdom of Gujarat was forcibly annexed (1299)".

  There's also the 1989 Gujarat State Gazeteer that says "During his campaign in South India he had already been attracted by the proverbial wealth of the sea-borne kingdom of Gujarat. He therefore seized the opportunity that came on his way by itself. Alauddin ordered his brother Ulugh Khan, alongwith another trusted general Nusrat Khan in Delhi to invade Gujarat in February 1299 A.D"

  We can be quite confident that this is not a Raj-era thing from Apama Kapadia's 2018 CUP Gujarat: The Long Fifteenth Century and the Making of a Region having this whole kingdom as one thing under the heading "The Chaulukya–Vaghela Polity, c. 940–1304", beginning with Mularaja and ending with the Vaghelas losing to Alauddin.

  I don't know where you two are looking, but it certainly hasn't begun with the sources right in front of you, and the statement that there are no sources presenting this as one continuous kingdom from Mularaja up to Alauddin is blatantly false. There definitely are, and if I could find them, with my limited means, you two certainly should have been able to.

  Uncle G (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I will concede that point to you, you are right. It was an oversight on my part and I should have looked into those sources before I filed this AFD, my apologies to everyone.

  However, this article does not contribute any new information, everything except the lead and Infobox was copied off the Chalukya dynasty and Vaghela dynasty articles. The creator removed the History and Culture sections from both articles [1] [2] and just pasted those contents (little to no changes) into this article without a discussion. Those contents that were removed have since been restored, making this article redundant. AlvaKedak (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as the article has pretty substantial material and sources On a second thought, Delete per WP:REDUNDANTFORK, as there aren't sufficient reliable sources to group the dynasties into one kingdom. Waleed (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Changing vote with reason per WP:CFORK. Keep. I am confused why this page was nominated. After going through first source itself, I see coverage on the subject and more followed after. Passes WP:GNG with significant coverage. RangersRus (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The primary issue here is not whether the "Kingdom of Gujarat" is mentioned in sources, it is the fact that this article appears to be a POV-fork of the existing Chaulukya dynasty and Vaghela dynasty pages, created without prior discussion or consensus. Much of its content was lifted directly from those articles with little to no new information added. While Uncle G rightly notes that some sources treat the Chaulukya and Vaghela periods as a continuous polity, the key question is whether this overlap justifies a separate article, or if it is better addressed within the established dynasty pages. Given the redundancy, I am still inclined to support deletion per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. AlvaKedak (talk) 10:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. Clearly a WP:REDUNDANTFORK, most sources are old which shouldn't be taken into our evaluation. While some sources may mention the "Kingdom of Gujarat" and we may get multiple google book hits with it but that doesn't mean reliable sources actually group the dynasties into one umbrella kingdom. Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 10:23, 25 March 2025 (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.