Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raja Amani Singh

: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. NORTH AMERICA1000 02:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

=[[Raja Amani Singh]]=

:{{la|Raja Amani Singh}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Raja_Amani_Singh Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Raja Amani Singh}})

Article does not qualify the criteria for Notability. No source of information available Mahensingha Talk 19:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete -Yes, no source of information available. It appears to be made-up by creator. I'm seeing absolute zero sources on Google Books, News, JSTOR, HighBeam, INDAFD search engines, etc. It is hard to believe that for their being king and achievements as mentioned in the article, they were not written in any books, journals, etc. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. As with some of Mahensingha's other nominations, I am willing to entertain the possibility that this person (allegedly a "king") possesses regional notability, but the condition of the articles (endemic poor grammar & OR by ESL editors) warrant nuking.
  • Delete - subject doesn't meet the requirements for significant coverage per WP:GNG and is therefore not notable. Anotherclown (talk) 10:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

: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.