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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Col. Raj Singh, Raja of Kasli

[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. This seems to be a very minor "prince" of an equally minor Indian princely state. Per the article, he apparently didn't even become raja until 1992 - a legal impossibility because the final remnants of the princely titles etc were abolished in 1971. I'm not even sure that Kasli was such a state - it looks like it may have been a jagir, which would make the guy little more than a landowner with some historic, inactive rights to collect revenue on behalf of the higher-ups.

He might be notable for his military commands but I can't find any sources for those, either. Sitush (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the pretenders to various extinct thrones are generally considered notable (see the extensive hierarchy at Category:Pretenders). However, my understanding from what's above is that Kasli was not a sovereign entity but merely a subnational unit, like a barony or county in the West. Absent stronger independent sources to indicate notability, I don't think that he meets WP:BIO. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 18:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the article is reliably sourced. Pictures of the subject standing in a former maharajah's hunting party towering over a dead tiger (from the days when dead tigers were a mark of pride for some) don't make the material either more notable or reliable. Yes, as user:Lankiveil states, there are no pretenders to Indian princely states. The states were only nominally sovereign, existing at the pleasure of their suzerain, the British Raj. As user:Sitush remarks, the princes irrevocably and legally lost their states (and reigns) in 1947 when the Raj ended and India became independent; in 1971, the titles, privileges, and remuneration awarded to the former princes were abolished by an amendment to the constitution of India. The page name itself, "Col. Raj Singh, Raja of Kasli" is inaccurate. I checked the Imperial Gazetteer of India and Kasli is not listed there as a princely state, indeed not listed as anything. I also did a search in all books published before 1947 (the year of India's independence) and Kasli, Rajputana, is not mentioned anywhere. That makes it very likely that the "Raja" was a zamindar or landlord, as Sitush suggests. The length and breadth of India was speckled with zamindars. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:57, 16 March 2014 (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.