Talk:Early Period of Kamarupa

Lower Assam Mid‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Lower Assam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lower Assam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Lower AssamWikipedia:WikiProject Lower AssamTemplate:WikiProject Lower AssamLower Assam articles
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

India: Assam / History Low‑importance

	India portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This redirect is supported by WikiProject Assam (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This redirect is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance).

Former countries

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles

Redirect?

@Fylindfotberserk: This article is a WP:POVFORK of the Varman dynasty. It mixes up mythical stories with historical events. As you can see, it is not written in an encyclopedic style either. I tried to copy-edit, but the effort is not worth it. I think this should be redirected to either Varman dynasty or Kamarupa#Varman_dynasty_(c._350_–_c._650). What do you think? Chaipau (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it seems. It is has large chunks of unsourced paras. Besides I do not think it serves anything special. Merging seems like a better option with any extra reliably sourced content duely merged in the article, I'd say here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I shall first delete the un-sourced parts and see what remains. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]