Talk:Rana Punja

WP:INDIA Banner/Rajasthan workgroup Addition
Note: WP India Project Banner with Rajasthan workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Rajasthan or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate, please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article --  TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) - 09:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 12 November 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. No prejudice against a new RM discussing the merits of IIO's proposed title, Rana Punja. Jenks24 (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Rao Poonja → Punja – spelling as per source -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  08:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose no evidence the 1576 battle Punja/Poonja is the only subject (and this article really needs better sources). I have created a baseline dab, and the dab could equally be at Poonja; in any case there's no primary here. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * NB This article might be better at Rana Punja:


 * That's what most sources call him In ictu oculi (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * oppose I see no reason to delete the page at "Punja" and merge it into a hatnote here -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Intention to revive this article
I have reviewed prior discussions related to the deletion/redirection of this article and have taken into account the concerns of those advocating deletion/redirection as well as those editors who thought this article could properly be sourced. In the totality of prior reasoning, I feel it is worth a shot to revive the article and source it properly, and will be attempting to do so over the summer of 2019. Comments welcome.Deccantrap (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)