Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rao Surtan 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 merge to Bundi State. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rao Surtan Singh

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

Delete: It relies entirely on only one source, which is a website and websites are not reliable sources in historical articles. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t get your claim that all websites are inherently unreliable. Is there anything wrong with this particular source? LaundryPizza03 (talk) 08:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can check it too. It just lists a list of rulers of Bundi, without ever citing a historical book or any scholarly work. You can find the source on the article's page. Besides, websites can provide as secondary sources for an article, but when it relies entirely on one source, a website, then it can be deleted. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 10:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A relatively minor ruler in 16th century India is going to be hard to source. That he is mentioned at all speaks volumes. We need to examine the website in particular. IT may or may not be written by someone knowledgeable. It feels like it was taken from an old printed source. If so, that would suffice for me. We need to search for more sources. It might wind up that we need to merge this into a List of rulers of Bundi. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was the rules of an indepent state. As long as his existence is verifiable we should keep the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is indeed notable, but it relies on only one, unreliable source and we cannot just assume that it is from an old printed source, either delete or redirect to History of Bundi. See WP:HSC for more information on citing historical articles. After conducting research on Rao Surtan, I found some websites in which he is mentioned(http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsFarEast/IndiaRajputanaBundi.htm) but none of them ever give a source to where did they get this information. Most of the sites where he is mentioned are mirror sites of Wikipedia.Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 06:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That being the case, the thing to do is to add a "refimprove"" tag and contact Wikiproject India to see if they can help with sourcing. Perhaps speedy keep as nominator says subject is notable. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Johnpacklambert. We need to dig into the paper sources and find better sourcing. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the article, you will see that it has had a refimprove tag since March 2014, but no references have been added.Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After a detailed analysis of the website(http://members.iinet.net.au/~royalty/ips/b/bundi.html), I found it does list some books as sources, but they do not cite Rao Surtan. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, what's the final desicion? I've seen that the discussion has been inactive for 2 days. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hagoromo's Susanoo: Yeah, about that. Deletion discussions run at least seven days. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bundi State as an {{R with possibilities}}. His successor Rao Surjan Singh has significantly more coverage, and almost certainly should have a stand-alone article. I can verify this person's existence through a Google Book search, but the snippets are so small I can't determine anything further. Based on blog posts like [1], I expect inaccurate information from Bharat Ka Veer Putra – Maharana Pratap may make its way here if the article is kept without references. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:43, 4 January 2018 (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.