Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jhala Ajja

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Jhala Ajja}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Jhala Ajja}})

This article was recreated under a different name shortly after being deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajja Jhala. The creator has used a different set of sources that still do not show evidence of notability. The page creator has wisely foregone the fantastical non-independent sources discussed in the previous AfD, but we still get nowhere close to WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:GNG. A brief analysis:

• A series of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS: [https://archive.org/details/dli.ministry.14106/page/73/mode/2up?q=ajja History of Mewar] has a single mention on page 174. [https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.120804/page/n39/mode/2up?q=20 Jhala Zalim Singh] has a single name check on page 20. [https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.69407/page/n67/mode/2up Mewar and the Mughal Emperors] has a single paragraph mentioning Ajja. [https://archive.org/details/dli.ernet.1431/page/n5/mode/2up?q=ajja Maharana Sanga The Hindupat] gives another single mention to Jhala Ajja.
• A series of colonial-era British sources (also trivial mentions) of questionable reliability per WP:RAJ: [https://archive.org/details/dli.ministry.25904/page/n87/mode/2up?q=69 History of the Dhrangadhra State] (1921) has two trivial mentions on page 69; [https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.38806/page/n163/mode/2up Rajputana Gazetteer] has single trivial mention on p. 128; [https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.116018/page/n115/mode/2up The Mewar Residency], volume 2 (1908) offers a single reference.
• The WP:SELFPUBLISHED [https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.117246/page/n1/mode/2up Medieval History of Rajasthan], which, even if reliable, gives a single mention to Ajja.

Bottom line: this appears to be an effort using WP:SYNTH to fabricate notability out of a series of passing mentions, many in sources of questionable reliablity. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, Gujarat, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)impo
• Delete. As I said in the previous discussion, the authors are of course interested in propping up their fanaticized family history. WP is not the place for this kind of promo. Also, this likely runs afoul of G4 at WP:CSD. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• :@Greens vs. Blacks I tried; an admin declined the G4. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Might not pass GNG but passes the subject-specific notability guideline WP:POLITICIAN as a ruler of a state. 70.95.40.63 (talk) 07:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• :Is a hereditary prince of a subnational region a politician under WP:NPOL? Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

:::WP:NPOL says that politician holding national or state/province wide office is presumed to be notable and being a hereditary ruler of a state is a state/province-wide political office. Wikipedia:Notability says that the article topic has to meet either GNG OR subject-specific notability guideline including WP:NPOL and it does not have to meet both. 70.95.40.63 (talk) 03:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• :::King and ruler are automatically notable on Wikipedia per WP:NPOL. 2001:EE0:1B23:B2C5:355B:3504:AFE0:49EB (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC) — 2001:EE0:1B23:B2C5:355B:3504:AFE0:49EB (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• ::::NPOL says nothing about hereditary royalty. It covers politicians and judges. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• :::::The article topic is a ruler. All rulers are politicians by definition. They wield political powers and make policies for the lands and subjects under their rule. 70.95.40.63 (talk) 08:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Admin note: This article has been tagged for G4 deletion twice, and for both times, 2 different admins ({{u|Nyttend}} and I) have reviewed the content here and the deleted article: they are 100% different. As such, please do not tag CSD G4 again. Thank you. – robertsky (talk) 12:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per the IP. We don't delete monarchs on notability grounds, as they're at least as notable as non-monarchial figures at similar levels. Even if he were subject to a higher monarch, he would have been at a level comparable to the chief minister of a small state in the current Republic of India, and the fact that he inherited his role is irrelevant. Also, the cited WP:RAJ discusses caste issues; this is unrelated to caste, and citing a userspace essay is unhelpful. Don't impose a userspace essay's point of view on everyone. Nyttend (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• :Can you point to the policy to your point that "We don't delete monarch on notability grounds..." I haven't read a policy stating that. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• ::Entirely separate from the reliability of the sources, none of them constitutes WP:SIGCOV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Jhala Ajja is a notable person. Article shouldn't be deleted. Lordo'Web (talk) 10:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Not enough coverage in sources. The article in question doesn't meet notability in WP:GNG, rendering it eligible for deletion under WP:SYNTH. Additionaly, the article's cursory examination of the subject fails to provide the requisite depth and analysis stipulated by WP:INDEPTH, thus necessitating its removal. MSLQr (talk) 08:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete does not pass GNG according to the concept of WP:Junk delete. He is not a notable person references show overview of only one event WP:ONEEVENT so he's a fictionary character in history:: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parul Sindhwan (talk • contribs) 07:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Agree with the nominator's explanations it should be deleted per SYNTH sources of RSSELF & lacking in depth-covrage DEPTH. Interestingly it is related to the series of articles directly related to Jhala dynasty. ®asteem Talk 20:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Relisting. I don't see a consensus here yet. But would editors arguing for a Keep, please point out which sources establish GNG or provide SIGCOV?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Cited refs fail to constitute WP:SIGCOV, focused on the Jhala clan, but barely mention Jhala Ajja's leadership in any depth. Despite examining the Refs of Dr. R.P. Shastri, G Sharma, and Ram Vallabh Somani, insufficient information exists to establish Ajja Jhala's notability, contravening Wikipedia's GNG Guideline. Useroppa (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC) — Useroppa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 12:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Not quite finding the level of decent sourcing we'd expect... Some mentions of the individual, but I don't think we have enough. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as above. DrKay (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.