Chawar Dynasty: These two articles needs checking to see whether they are verifiable in reliable sources or not (in which case they need deletion), or just need to be moved to the right title.  The Chawar or Chanwar Dynasty seems to be based solely on the works of Raj Kumar, who discusses a "Chamar" dynasty.  There are no books about a Chawar Dynasty [16] and one mention of a Chanwar Dynasty [17] , but there is one author who has extensively written about a Chamar Dynasty [18] .  But one would expect many more sources about a dynasty that apparently ruled "the western part of India and surrounding areas" for 600 years.  The articles have some sources which seem to have nothing to do with the subject at all, e.g. Raja Chanwarsen uses this book [19] as a reference?  There are no book sources (in Latin script) about a king "Raja Chawarsen" [20] , nor for Raja Chamarsen or Raja Chanwarsen.  Perhaps some other spelling will give results?  Fram ( talk ) 10:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Royalty and nobility ,  and India .  Fram ( talk ) 10:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete for Chawar Dynasty but oppose Raja Chanwarsen.  You can't catch him because he is spelled differently in English and Hindi.  Please conduct research before initiating an AfD.  He was a king not a dog!  India had over 500 princely states, ruled by Maharaja (king).  Clearly passes WP:NPOL .  2001:2042:6C20:F200:4531:44AE:5916:820A ( talk ) 13:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please enlighten us, how is his name spelled in English then?  I did my research, I added links of my searches.  You just make claims but don't provide anything to substantiate them.  Fram ( talk ) 13:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Somehow I don't think Juan Ramón Jiménez 's Platero and I , a famous early 1900s Spanish poem about a donkey, actually has a lot to say about Raja Chanwarsen...  This makes me suspicious of the other sources.  The one Hindi source links to a seemingly AI-generated news4ocial.com piece that claims Chanvarsen (@ Fram might want to search this spelling) and the dynasty were written about in great detail in the book "History of Rajasthan" by a "Colonel Taad Mahoday" (this is probably James Tod ).  The article also uses a pic, helpfully captioned "History", of unrelated erotic sculptures from the Jain Adinatha temple, Khajuraho in Madhya Pradesh, so...reliability is questionable.  The page also has this disclaimer: "Disclaimer: The information and information given in this article is based on general information. News4social does not confirm these. Before implementing these, contact the concerned expert."  Chamar refers to a dalit caste and alleged dynasty that Chanvarsen may have belonged to.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 19:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The image used on the Chanwarsen page is of Karna, not Chanwarsen, and was stolen from the cover of a book .  I've nominated it for deletion at commons as copyvio.  Not sure what has to be done on en.wp end?  JoelleJay ( talk ) 02:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete both .  Of the five sources used in the dynasty article: Kalpaz publications looks like a predatory publisher that doesn't do any peer review or even copy-editing of manuscripts.  Victor Rosner in Anthropos makes no mention of any dynasty, he is talking about chawar , which is a type of headdress made from false hair.  Onni Gust in Victorian Studies makes no mention of any dynasty; it is the preceding article by Angela Thompsell that mentions the Chamar, but that is in reference to the Dalit caste of that name, which is obviously very, very far from a ruling dynasty.  Jankari Today does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Reliable sources .  The Joshua Project is utterly useless and rightly condemned at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources .  Raja Chanwarsen reigned for 600 years, if you believe his article.  I think we can take it as read that such claims are not substantiable.  The sources at Chanwarsen are the same, or as bad, as the ones in the dynasty article.  DrKay ( talk ) 18:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete both poor quality sourcing showing no evidence of meeting WP:GNG .  ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 15:48, 25 December 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete