This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Rajasthan. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Rajasthan|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Rajasthan. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to India.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Rajasthan/archive

Salma Arastu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Questionable WP:Notability, with most information sourced from subject's own resume —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 04:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Visual arts. —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 04:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Gujarat, Rajasthan, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've trimmed a lot of the puffery/fluff, unsourced claims and items sourced solely to her own resume on her website. I have retained the reliable sources, although I'm not sure about the L.A. Voyage, it seems like a blog. The article previously was extremely promotional and seems the work of a PR agent or was heavily edited by the artist themself or someone connected to the artist. A before search finds tons of churnalism, pay-to-play publications, native advertising which points to SEO activity and PROMO. However, she is in two collections that I could verify, and had a review in the Los Angeles Times,[1]; is mentioned an academic journal article (not certain how extensively)[2], has a short entry in the book Muslim Women in America: The Challenge of Islamic Identity Today on page 139 [3]. I'm leaning towards K*eep because I think there is a good chance she is notable despite the promotional efforts, but want to do a Newspapers.com and a JSTOR search first before !voting. Netherzone (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - after deeper searching and cleaning up the promo and poor sourcing from the article, I have found definitive evidence of her notability. I've added numerous citations in reliable sources to the article. A search on the Wikipedia Library revealed everything from feature articles to academic journals, I didn't even have to go directly to JSTOR to find additional hits. I tried logging into Newspapers.com via the WikiLib, but could not access the site (a perpetual problem it seems). Nevertheless, she meets both WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In light of what you've raised, i would support keeping this page, but i believe that it would still need some major more work done to bring it up to quality standards. —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 05:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Please go right ahead. If you want to continue to trim it back to a stub, I have no objections whatsoever. Netherzone (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, did you happen to do a WP:BEFORE search prior to nominating? It's considered best practices. Netherzone (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I tried, but I find it hard to see anything but self-published or commissioned reports. —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 05:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Visual arts. Netherzone (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral history of Hanuman Beniwal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG, not a notable state or national-level politician, member of a minor regional party with limited area of influence. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 01:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Hanuman Beniwal: Subject is notable per WP:NPOL but there is no need to to have a separate article for his electoral history. Content can easily be accommodated in Hanuman Beniwal#Electoral history. Obi2canibe (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Hanuman Beniwal per Obi2canibe.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Hanuman Beniwal#Electoral history. Does not need to be separate page. RangersRus (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Jhain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG, None of the sources gives enough significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) of this event/conflict to establish Notability (WP:N). Moreover the article focuses more on the background and the aftermath as the article only mentions 2-3 lines about the actual conflict. Koshuri ^(グ) 19:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, India, and Rajasthan. Koshuri ^(グ) 19:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Koshuri ^(グ) 19:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There are plenty of sources that significantly cover it. The article could be expanded though. [4] [5] [6] (pg 209) [7] (Page 221) [8] (pg 136) Noorullah (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete : Per nomination. The sources provided by Noorullah21 doesn't provides WP:SIGCOV while other ones are unreliable. First two sources doens't have WP:SIGCOV and the authors of the rest of the sources are not historian. CelesteQuill (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @CelesteQuill Nonsense. Cited on google scholars: [9] [10] Noorullah (talk) 04:36, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]