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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mithila (Nepal) (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)

I'm not sure if this article really qualifies as notable. First of all, the proposed state doesn't even exist yet (WP:CRYSTAL), and the tone of the article is along somewhat POV/advocacy/promotion lines. Canuck^{89 (talk to me)} 10:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not clear, what did you mean by saying "the proposed state doesn't even exist yet". Does it mean that there is no such proposal ? Does it mean that There is no demand for creation of Mithila state in Nepal? Please clarify. Vikas11004315 (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If saying that Mithila is a proposed state in Nepal is objectionable, I change the statement. Now is written as Mithila is a region in South East Nepal. Tell me more. Vikas11004315 (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Region may not be the best word either, since the 5 main subdivisions under the current system are called X Region. See also my longer comment below. --Stfg (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning Keep - The topic appears to have received significant coverage in reliable sources.

• The Himalayan Times – Locals oppose Mithila division

However, some of the sources are in Hindi Nepali and, and I'm having difficulties translating them:

• Kantipur Publications – Reports relating to the restructuring Snvidhansbama Ptaine (in Nepali)
• BBC Nepali: माओवादी संघीय प्रस्तावप्रति आपत्ति (in Nepali)

Hence the leaning keep vote at this time. Hopefully other editors who are fluent in Hindi Nepali can help to clarify the content of the sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your supporting statement on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mithila_(Nepal) . A heartful thanks for that. I thought to inform you that... The two link, you said, you could not understand are in Hindi. But, They are not in Hindi. They are in Nepali, The National Language of Nepal. I believe, you might have got confused because, both the languages Hindi and Nepali share same script. Vikas11004315 (talk) 11:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information! I've changed language icons to Nepali, in the article and in this discussion above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have access to a translator that can translate these into English, to post here so readers who aren't fluent in Nepali can review the sources? That would be a great help. Also, if you speak/read Nepali, please feel free to critique the sources, particularly as to whether or not they meet the criteria at WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say that I don't have access to any such translator. There are few translator like Google translator. But, The translation in not very exact. While google works good in translating Nepali to Hindi and vice-versa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikas11004315 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested help with translation and improving the article at WikiProject Nepal here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nepal – Mithila (Nepal). Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Sorry !! I got you now. The answer is again NO. Vikas11004315 (talk) 12:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL. As I am able to understand the article, Mithila (Nepal) does not yet actually exist. Other elements of the article appear to be "other stuff" related to Mithila (Nepal) that was found in Internet searches and added to try to increase the number of references. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Does this above !vote include a review of the Nepali sources in the article, (if you're fluent in Nepali)? Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not fluent in Nepali, nor should I be. If the article relies on non-English citations, alternatives to those citations that are in English should be provided in the article itself (and not just here on the AFD page). See Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Non-english_citations. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Mithila was the capital city of Videha Kingdom. As per the culture of that time, Most of the kingdoms were known by the name of their Capital. So, The Videha Kingdom was also more popularily called Mithila. Today also the region is identified by the name Mithila only. Mithila region extends on either side of international border between INDIA and NEPAL. The India side of Mithila is named Mithila (India) on Wikipedia. So, I believe that there must exist another article on the Mithila region falling on the Nepal's side and that should be name Mithila (Nepal). Also, The capital city of Ancient Videha Kingdom is identified to be Janakpur in Nepal. These are the few articles which may help you (If you have not learnt about Mithila)

• History of Mithila
• List of Kings of Mithila
• Janakpur
• Videha

So, In my point of view, the existence of Mithila (Nepal) i.e Mithila region in Nepal can't be questioned. Vikas11004315 (talk) 02:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My !vote was based on the state of the article when I reviewed it. If you have not already done so, please update the article to include this information. Articles themselves must include clear assertion of notability and adequate reference thereof. Doing so sooner versus later will lead to less AFD-related angst JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For those who are not not comfortable with Nepali, I am giving here the alternative links of those references which are in Nepali language.

For clarity, let me state again: If the article relies on non-English citations, alternatives to those citations that are in English should be provided in the article itself (and not just here on the AFD page). See Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Non-english_citations. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• SRC(State Reorganization commission) submits report to govt proposing 11 states

• Failed verification -- see below. --Stfg (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Janakpur folks protest Maoist federal model

Vikas11004315 (talk) 06:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Changed my !vote to Keep above. Rationale: This is a verified geographic region within a country whose name and geographic area is recognized by its inhabitants and others as existent, and it also refers to the ancient kingdom of Videha. In January 2012, the State Reorganization Commission of Nepal proposed to have 11 states in the country, in which the Mithila of Nepal would become a recognized state.^[1] It has been proposed to become an official geographic boundary. Also per WP:FIVEPILLARS, Wikipedia functions in part as a gazetteer. Lastly, the topic has received coverage, and the sources appear to be reliable sources. Thanks User:Vikas11004315 for finding and posting the additional sources.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You User:Northamerica1000 for giving your time in understanding the subject, and voting to keep. (user:Vikas11004315 is now User:MithilaDeshan) MithilaDesham (talk) 03:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Mithila is a historical cultural region, so the topic itself is notable. The article does have some NPOV/advocacy issues, since there is a movement for its recognition as a separate administrative unit. That warrants cleanup, not deletion. utcursch | talk 18:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Just had a look at the history of the article. Apparently, the page Mithila was originally about the ancient cultural region, but MithilaDesham/Vikas11004315 moved it to Mithila (India), and changed the subject of the article completely to make it a page on the proposed state in India. Then, he created another article about the proposed state in Nepal. There are other articles, History of Mithila and Videha, which cover the ancient region. My vote still remains keep: I think if there are references to support the fact that there is indeed a movement for creation of a separate state, the article should be kept. utcursch | talk 18:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you utcursch for voting Keep.

• Keep I, myself being the creator of this article Mithila (Nepal), I vote Keep. (I don't know, whether, it is allowed or not). * Mithila was the capital city of Videha Kingdom. As per the culture of that time, Most of the kingdoms were known by the name of their Capital. So, The Videha Kingdom was also more popularily called Mithila. Today also the region is identified by the name Mithila only. Mithila region extends on either side of international border between INDIA and NEPAL. The India side of Mithila is named Mithila (India) on Wikipedia. So, I believe that there must exist another article on the Mithila region falling on the Nepal's side and that should be name Mithila (Nepal). MithilaDesham (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sugauli Treaty Devided Mithila between India and Nepal: For those who are not knowing about Sugauli treaty, might be wondering how Mithila became Mithila (India) + Mithila (Nepal)!!! As the Sugauli treaty is related to the current topic of discussion, I would like to tell a little about this.

In 1816, East India Company signed a treaty with Gurkhas of Nepal, which lead to the end of two year long Alglo-Nepali war between British India and Nepal. Under this treaty, a part of Mithila was conceded from India to Nepal^[1]. This region was popularly called Eastern Terai or Mithila in Nepal.^[2]

Since 1816- Sugauli Treaty, Nepal holds the control over the Northern parts (minor portion) of Mithila, while the Southern Parts (Major portion) remain under the control of India.

— Above preceding unsigned comment added by MithilaDesham (talk • contribs) 20:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete: Article contradicts with the five pillars of the Wikipedia. This does not reflect neutral point of views. Samyo (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Its a historic region, so why delete it. Maybe the article needs better sourcing, but that in itself should not be a reason to delete.--WALTHAM2 (talk) 10:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it! Treaty of Sugauli divided Mithila in two parts. One in India and another in Nepal. This is not an imagination of somebody. It should have been part of Wikipedia from day1.

Mithila of Nepal has geography, population, history, culture, literature. It exists and must be recognized by all. Mithila of India is currently part of Bihar state, does it mean that it does not exist? Same argument can be given about Tibet. Tibet is currently forcibly occupied by its invader China. Should it not be recognized? I totally disagree with arguments of deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajha Bakshi (talk • contribs)

• Keep The article needs copy-editing, which I am going to do, and some change of tone, which I will carefully attempt but I may need some help. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: "Regions" are already part of the present structure of Nepal, as described in Nepal#Subdivisions and elsewhere. Maybe the first sentence could read "Mithila (Devanagri मिथिला Tirhuta মিথিলা ) or the eastern Terai is part of southeast Nepal." Even then, the article would still look as if it's written on the assumption that the SRC proposal will carry. FN2 is a failed verification as, although it says they proposed 11 states, it only lists 10, and Mithila is only identified as part of a larger composite one. I can't read the Devanagari of FN30. The map shown in the SRC Proposal section of the article may have been created for wikipedia, but it's obviously a copy (same colour scheme, for example) of the one at FN30. Has copyright permission been obtained? The image page doesn't say so or acknowledge the source. By the way, the wikipedia version only shows 10 states, as it loses a dividing line inside the grey-brown part in the north. Now, what is the status of the map in the infobox? Is it a map showing a well-identified entity with agreed boundaries? (Citation, please, if so). Or are its boundaries those of the SRC proposal? If the latter, it's WP:CRYSTAL. --Stfg (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As per the recommendation of SRC, Nepal will have 11 states, out of which 1 will be non-territorial Dalit state. That non-territorial Dalit State is not shown in the Map. No media sources have shown the non-territorial state in their respective versions of Map.

• OK, but FN2 only lists 10 of the 11 proposed states, including non-territorial Dalit, and not including Mithila. All I'm saying is that FN2 is not a good source for the statement that Mithila is proposed to become a state. --Stfg (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Similar Map is used by many media sources. All show only 10 states, as 11th one is non-territorial state. The Wikipedia version of Map is made according to the maps released by different media sources. It is NOT the copy of any particular map (may it be FN30).

• Who first made a map with those lines and that colour scheme? Have they waived copyright? It doesn't matter whether it was physically copied. What matters is the question of intellectual property. --Stfg (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The Grey Brown color part in North is not divided. It is complete one Unit. A yellow lines seems to be running across the region. But, That line is not dividing the region. It is infact pointing the name of a state, which is written outside the Map.

• Ah, OK. I was confused because there is writing either side of the line. --Stfg (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Mithila is certainly not a administrative unit of Nepal right now. But it is a recognized as a region in Nepal on linguistic and historic grounds

• Good, but in that case you need a reliable source for what it is and what are its boundaries, independent of the SRC recommendation. Note that your sources for the Geography section (FN3 and FN4) are unacceptable as they are Wikipedia articles, and there are a few other cases later in the article. See WP:RS#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources: "Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose". --Stfg (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Finally, I will say that this map is according to SRC recommendation. Similar Maps can be found on Google. You can verify the boundaries.

• I accept the map of the SRC proposal as reliable. What about the map in the infobox? If it's of "a region in Nepal on linguistic and historic grounds", we need a source outside wikipedia, and independent of the SRC proposal. --Stfg (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There are many similar articles on Wikipedia about the proposed states in India like Bundelkhand, Telangana, Harit Pradesh, Purvanchal like Madhesh. Then why not of Nepal Mithila ?

• Hang on a second: Is this an article about a proposed state or about "a region in Nepal on linguistic and historic grounds" as you said higher up? Harit Pradesh is indeed about a proposed state, but the others are primarily about regions that exist in their won right. In any case, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Stfg (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Moreover, I am new on Wikipedia. Whatever goes wrong by me, fellow Wikipedians are welcome to correct it or inform me about the correction.

• Of course. I hadn't voted (and am about to call "keep"). My questions are related to the AfD, in particular to be clear that the article is not based on the undecided proposal. --Stfg (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regards -MithilaDesham (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have some misgivings about some parts of the article, expressed in the comments above, but they are not grounds for deletion. There is plenty here about the history, culture and so forth of the region to justify an article. --Stfg (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment following Stfg's comments: Mithila is first of all a region based on history and Language, also CA and SRC has recommended it to make a state. I will take a day (about 24 hrs) time to add some better references and to rectify as you have suggested. Also, I will try to add both versions of Map suggested by C.A and SRC. Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions. MithilaDesham (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - a proposed state can certainly be notable - see, e.g. State of Franklin, References in Nepali, or whatever language where a large enough population exists that it can be translated into English, are perfectly acceptable and considered verifiable (nothing in WP:V says anything about "easily verified"). The references DO NOT have to be translated into English. AGF for the people who can translate, and if you can't contribute, please don't stop other people from contributing. Variations in local versions of English might be tricky - but we can handle British, American, Australian and probably several other versions, so why not just smooth out the differences in vocabulary and grammar? It doesn't now seem to be pushing a POV, but it might have been edited since the nomination. Just no reason to delete this. Smallbones (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have copy-edited the article (may still need some minor work) for links, grammar, and the removal of doubtful material. I have added Citation needed templates. Perhaps some of the legendary and religious material should be removed. I did remove the entire Genocide section, as it appears elsewhere and does not need repetition here. Any issues with WP:NPOV remaining should be cited by deletion proponents. This was a poorly written and weak article, but after copy-editing and other improvements, it should be kept. Any remaining problems should be tagged, as I say they are only reasons to call for improvement, not reasons for deleting the whole article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: First Map has been removed because it was showing Chitwan District and Udayapur District. Studying on the topic later, I found these two districts are not of Mithila. Mithila has only 11 districts, while the map was showing 2 extra. However, there are few sources which claim those two districts to be part of Mithila. I will add another map showing the 11 districts. MithilaDesham (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article is poorly written, but topic is notable. I see at least 25 references to independent reliable sources. Debbie W. 03:59, 12 May 2012 (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.