Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raja Sangram Singh

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Tan ǀ 39 20:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Sangram Singh

edit
Raja Sangram Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non notable. Did not see any mention of him in the sources provided. Granted, he may be related to some notable people, but by himself he is not notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Comment:if anyone can check with the Zila Teshildars records at Nawashahar i guess it wud be clear that the Raja's name is authentic.....i'm trying to procure the punjabi text and make appropriate translations....although it is absurd that the INP site has taken the page off for review......anyway, if someone agrees i could rather re-do the article on the people - "Ghorewahs" which number a few hundred thousand in Punjab-India and Pakistan and by then also get the source to prove the Raja's position and merge this on that page.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karan112 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply That sounds like a good idea. The notability of the Ghorewah's would have to be established first, before an assessment could be made as to the notability to their present day post-independence ruler, or whatever term is appropriate for him. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Karan112, you have voted keep twice. If you wish to change your vote , please strike out your earlier vote using <s>Strike-through text</s>. If you do not wish to change your vote, just type Comment instead of Keep. Also , please sign your messages using ~~~~~. Thanks. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 06:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No independent reliable sources coverage to demonstrate notability per WP:BIO. In fact, no reliable sources to even verify the information given in the article, as required by WP:V. GoogleBooks gives 26 hits[1] but all appears to be false positives. Nsk92 (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment + Suggestion: Regarding ex-rulers, please understand this: there are no more kings or kingdoms in India any more. Some memebrs of "former" royal families(eg Karan Singh) may be notable on account of their activities; not because they have blue blood. If there are othe articles about such kings and queens, I think they should be weeded out. At the time of India's Independece there were over 550 kingdoms, most of them no larger than a village or Tehsil. Gorehwa was probably one of them. We cannot have articles for all 550*2 "nominal" His RH and Her RH and their kith and kin,just on account of being of some royal family that no longer rules. Of course an article on Gorewah as a former princley state is welcome. But the royal lineages that are mentioned should in my opinion, stop at 1947, and not continue beyond it.--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 06:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This looks to me rather like the issue of members of the British peerage. I am not quite sure what the current view is, but there are articles on many peers of past centuries, some of whom may have had limited notability. ON the other hand we deleted articles concenring the family of a Greek royal princess and her husband and children (or possibly merged them into one article. While Maharajahs have lost their political power and been deprived of their privy purses, I am not clear what status they have today in Indian society. I would suggest that articles should only be created for those who can establish notability other than by parentage. However, we might have articles dealing with whole families. no vote as such. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Discering the niche of present day Indian royalty and comparison to British peerage are very appropriate discussion to have. Per this discussion though, the individual under discussion has yet to be proven notable. Also, reliable sources are lacking to back up any claims to notability. As such, this article does not meet Wikipedia standards for Verifiability, Notability, and Reliable Sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability demonstrated (nominal nobility is insufficient), and the absence of mention in reliable sources. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - appears to be a real noble. Bearian (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Raja_Sangram_Singh&oldid=1088207742"