Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maharaja Dham Dev 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. MBisanz ^talk 18:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maharaja Dham Dev Singh

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotion puff piece on whats likely a family member or some such thing, fails GNG/A7 and was previously deleted on copyvio grounds about a week ago. I suspect an SPA here, but I'm deferring what I suspect is an impending block for NOTHERE contributions until the community puts its two cents in on the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't know enough about Indian semi-royalty such as this. Can we get an expert to chime in? Bearian (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep History stuff from this far back sure would not have much sources online, so based on existing sources and assuming good faith, it should be kept and researched for inaccuracy. Peter303x (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reading some of the existing articles on Sakarwar Rajput and other medieval Indian history pieces, the article here appears to be legitimate. As the previous discussion suggests, I'd rather keep and try to improve.--Concertmusic (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, that's a pretty weak argument. Searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - there were a lot of "kings" in medieval India, who had the title but were not sovereigns, so I'm not sure this person was actually per se notable. Bearian (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2020 (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.