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 speedy delete as an unambiguous copyright violation. No judgement is made on merits of notability and no prejudice to creation of an article without copyright violations. Whpq (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khejarla Fort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Khejarla Fort should have some sort of historic claim, but it's not made here - in this almost entirely OR article. Sourced entirely to Rajasthan Tourism websites (it's now a hotel), there is no referencing/sourcing to justify the article's content. There are absolutely no inline citations. Should go to draft, ideally, but there's already a draft article in existence. As it stands, fails WP:GNG; WP:BUILDING. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, India, and Rajasthan. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. I moved this to draft at one point and the user objected apparently, as they copy and pasted the contents back. Copyvio shows the majority of it was copied from elsewhere. This user has tried to create this page several times so I think deletion over draftication is the right path. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The concept that a 17C fort is not notable is just utterly ludicrous. If India had any sort of proper heritage listing system this would obviously meet WP:GEOFEAT as it would in any European country. Using the lack of such a system to get the article deleted is pure WP:SYSTEMIC. Yes, it's a poor article, but the topic is clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Necrothesp.4meter4 (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• revert to stub It gets a few mentions it travel books, so maybe notable, but the current version is a blatant copyright violation and has to go. Mangoe (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there's a notice on the page now for possible copyvio so it may well be that it is SD before we finish this discussion. FWIW I would have !voted keep but I fear there won't be anything left to keep soon. JMWt (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2022 (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.