Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former throne of Rajpipla


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Line of succession to the former throne of Rajpipla

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This kingdom has been defunct since 1949. This completely unsourced article looks like unverifiable original research, including about the supposed royal status of living persons (WP:BLP). See also WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Compare Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Austro-Hungarian throne for a similar case. Norden1990 (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Norden1990 (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. This line of succession, containing the full names of 26 people, has one blue link and zero sources. The article on the former princely state of Rajpipla itself only cites four sources newer than the Partition of India: a book from 1968, a news article about an airport being built in the area, a dead link to a royalty forum, and the promotional OpenLibrary entry of Prince Indra Vikram "Teddy" Singh, the purported "scion of the royal family of Rajpipla" who wrote a handful of (mostly self-published) books on cricket and writes two blogs listed a combined 11 times in the External Links. The other External Links are: a WP:PEACOCK-heavy interview with Singh in The New Indian Express, with no author attributed; a New Indian Express article on a book by Singh, again with no byline; a blog called the Rajpipla Post; a page on the Gujrat government site that didn't load for me; and a page of the Bombay Gazetteer from 1880. All of this leads me to believe there are no reliable sources discussing members of this abolished dynasty in any meaningful way. JoelleJay (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:DEL-REASON 6: Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes). It is impossible to attribute the current line of succession to this throne to WP:RELIABLE sources, because there is no current line of succession, because the princely state itself doesn't even exist anymore. TompaDompa (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as apparently original research. Mccapra (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:DEL-REASON 6. Nika2020 (talk) 05:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and the other comments above. Smeat75 (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:LIST, WP:MILL. This is yet another list about the succession rights to a minor, non-sovereign state. Bearian (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom  --  Devokewater talk 18:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.