Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajit Singh Bhati

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 per WP:G5 for Ajit Singh Bhati and Shambhujit Singh Bhati as article created by a Bensebgli sock with no significant contributions from others; and redirect to Dadri for Dargahi Singh Bhati. Abecedare (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ajit Singh Bhati[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Ajit Singh Bhati (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)

There is no mention of them in the sources cited in these articles. One source is the book of an academic named Javaid Rahi, who is not independent because he is a Gujjar academic who only writes praise in his publications. Second, it is unknown whether these kings existed or were imaginary. Some such articles were created in the last two to three days using the Gazetteer as a source, but there is no mention of these names in it.

This nomination is also for:

You can see a short discussion here on my talk. DreamRimmer (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think these articles do not meet the criteria for deletion, as many reliable sources have already been added. أسامة بن عبد الله وليد (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see anything significant in these sources either. DreamRimmer (talk) 03:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DreamRimmer Okay, sir, no problem. I'll always try to do my best, and other editors can also do their best. But if you think your first claim has not been cleared, as you said such characters are imaginary first, and you also said these pages are entirely based on the work of Javaid Rahi, I have already cleared these claims by putting more than 4 to 5 references from independent and reliable sources, so there should be no more excuses because such sources have been written by different writers that have nothing to do with these characters, so such claims do not meet the criteria for deletions of the articles of Dargahi Singh Bhati, Shambujit Singh Bhati, and Ajit Singh Bhati. أسامة بن عبد الله وليد (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Spiderone
@أسامة بن عبد الله وليد
@Scottywong
Oppose the deletions Request = Do not meet the criteria for deletion as this page has multiple primary sources and secondary sources exist on the article pages of Dargahi Singh Bhati and Ajit Singh Bhati and shambhujit Singh Bhati. 103.172.167.25 (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Struck sock !vote. Abecedare (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2023-06 ✍️ create
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all: Now that sources have been added verifying that they really existed, they are presumed to be notable per Wikipedia:POLITICIAN. --StellarHalo (talk) 07:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Dadri is wrongly mentioned as a princely state in the three articles, although it was an estate. And the subject of this AfD (Ajit Singh) was its muqarraridār, i.e. he occupied it by paying a fixed revenue rate to the British.
As of now, Dirk H. A. Kolff's source is the sole reliable source cited in these three articles. It has nontrivial coverage about Ajit Singh Bhati, but Shambhujit Singh Bhati and Dargahi Singh Bhati have a combined coverage of around 5 lines in it (see p. 149). So it seems these two don't need standalone articles and should be covered in some other article. Maybe for now a paragraph about the Dadri estate can be added in Dadri#History where both of them can also be covered/redirected. The Kolff's source doesn't mention their surname as Bhati. So all three pages are needed to be renamed as well.
Some details about Javed Rahi's unreliable book

The Javaid Rahi's source is cited in all three articles. But it is edited by Javaid Rahi, a Gurjar activist who specialises in Kashmiri languages. So he is not even a historian. More importantly, the author (Rana Ali Hussan Chouhan) of the cited pages was not even a scholar. He was a civil engineer belonging to the Gurjar caste himself. So this is a non-scholarly and non-HISTRS source, which is not reliable for history-related details. BTW, the details of the author (Chauhan) are mainly available on Gurjar promo sites, although his nephew also mentions in this interview that Chauhan was a civil engineer in Pakistan Public Works Department. Note that the 400-plus pages of Rahi's book, i.e. pp. 243–728, are authored by this Gurjar engineer. As expected from a nonscholar, the content is full of fringe theories, e.g. Kolff's source mentions (on page no. 151) that the subject of this AfD (Ajit Singh) died in 1812: "On 4 October 1812, Rao Ajit Singh died without issue." But as per Chauhan (see page no. 590), Ajit Singh took part in the Indian Rebellion of 1857: "Raja Ajit Singh had a vast territory but he was not granted a ‘Treaty Pact’ so Bhatis revolted vociferously in 1857. Consequently Raja Ajit Singh died fighting."

The rest of the sources are century-old unreliable gazetteers authored by British Raj officers or the nonscholarly government documents which plagiarise those gazetteers. None of them are reliable for history-related details – see WP:RAJ, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:HISTRS.
In short, Ajit Singh Bhati seems notable, but Shambhujit Singh Bhati and Dargahi Singh Bhati should be redirected. Note that this observation is mainly based on the cited sources of the three articles and I have yet to make an independent search about the subjects. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal to NitinMlk's analysis of sources from أسامة بن عبد الله وليد and tangents about other articles signed, Rosguill talk 04:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Oppose the false claim @NitinMlk I do respect your concern, but first of all, These articles are largely dependent on independent sources written by different writers, not on Javed Rahi's or Rana Ali Hassan Chauhan's. The second thing is that where Dargahi Singh Bhati and Shambu Singh (Shambhujit Singh) are mentioned as bhati, they are also clearly mentioned in the Quotes given from the citations. And also go and check; there are many references that Dadri's rulers were Bhati Gujjar and Bhati Gujjar clan clearly mentioned in the Quotes given from the citations, and I am the creator of Ajit Singh Bhati (also known as Rao Jit Singh Bhati) and Shambujit Singh Bhati (Also known as Shambu Singh) Singh Bhati's pages. So it's a wrong claim that Dadri's rulers were not Bhati Gujjar's second statements regarding Javaid Rahi or Rana Ali Hassan Chauhan because their references are not mentioned as first sources in the body of the article. If you have some problems with the Citations given by Javaid Rahi's book, Can be removed, but Bhati Gujjar is clearly mentioned by many independent historians. but if you have some issues why These characters mentioned as Bhati Gujjar go and read the Quote given from Refrences and also try to read these Refrences some are free or some are paid where Rulers of Dadri estate or Dadri's rulers clearly mentioned as Bhati Gujjar. Thank you so much for leaving your concern and being kind. ✝️✝️🕊️ Have a nice day Brother @NitinMlk.
أسامة بن عبد الله وليد (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
أسامة بن عبد الله وليد, you misunderstood my comment. All three subjects were of course Gurjars belonging to the Bhati clan. I didn't even contest that fact. My comment was about WP:COMMONNAME, which simply means that if most of the reliable sources refer to the subject of this article as, let's say, Rao Ajit Singh, then that will be the Wikipedia article's title. BTW, Kolff's source refers to him as Rao Ajit Singh, which also seems like his WP:COMMONNAME. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate !votes, more arguments about other articles signed, Rosguill talk 04:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Oppose
@Liz
@NitinMlk
First of all, there is not a single reference. From the work of Rana Ali Hassan Chauhan, then why have you mentioned his work? The second thing is that, According to your claim, Dadri was not a princely state but an estate. Does it matter or meet the criteria for deliberation? Instead of providing any reliable source, you just try to make lame excuses by talking about Rana Ali Hassan Chauhan, even though there is not a single citation from his book and his books are not reachable digitally. You also talk about redirecting these pages to the Dadri town article, but why? Why not write a new article on Dadri estate or Dadri princely state in the future by citing reliable sources? You also claimed that Dirk H.A. Kolff just talked about Bhatti Gujjar in six lines. That's not the truth. I am leaving the Reference to Dirk H.A. Kolff. Book go and Read carefully. He talked about Dadri's rulers as Bhatti Gujjar, and he also talked about Dargahi Singh Bhati, Ajit Singh Bhati, and Shambujit Singh Bhati see this Reference on pages 138, 148, 461, 462, and 641. [a] 103.191.123.67 (talk) 08:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Struck sock !vote. Abecedare (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, you mentioned that Rana Ali Hassan Chauhan is not cited in the articles in question. But that's not true, as he is cited in all three articles even now: see Ajit Singh Bhati's ref no. 4 and 6; Shambhujit Singh Bhati's ref no. 4 and 7; and Dargahi Singh Bhati's ref no. 4. All of them cite page no. 589 and/or page no. 590, which are authored by Rana Ali Hassan Chauhan.

Secondly, I never "claimed that Dirk H.A. Kolff just talked about Bhatti Gujjar in six lines." I mentioned that Kolff's source "has nontrivial coverage about Ajit Singh Bhati, but Shambhujit Singh Bhati and Dargahi Singh Bhati have a combined coverage of around 5 lines in it (see p. 149)."

Thirdly, Dadri was never a princely state. So I pointed out that mistake, as estates and princely states are two different things. You can read princely state to know more about it.

Fourthly, I mentioned, "Maybe for now a paragraph about the Dadri estate can be added in Dadri#History where both of them can also be covered/redirected." But of course if a well-sourced article about Dadri estate is created in the future, then these two subjects can be covered there.

Finally, please don't reply without reading my previous and this comment very carefully. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NitinMlk
•1st Dear brother you're not trying to understand the base of our conversation.
First of all you're absolutely wrong and not using Comman sense that any refrences from the work of Rana Ali Hassan chauhan not mentioned in any citations at all. Brother do your research and home work again clear your confusion first or provide solid proofs that any writer mentioned in their books that they're writing about these characters by considering first refrences from the work of Rana Ali Hassan chauhan simple.
• 2nd thing is that all your false claims now have clear because Raj Era sources all I have removed.
• 3rd claim That Dadri's rulers never mentioned as bhatti this claim Also proven wrong and this article not dependent on the work of Javaid Rahi and Rana Ali Hassan chauhan totally wrong claim without any mention of these writers in the books of Dirk H.A Kolff or other Writers as refrences.
• 4th thing is that you totally try to manipulate the conversation by putting small excuses like oh! This was not a princely state but a Estate okay no problem but this small excuses can not meet the criteria for deletions.
• 5th read your previous comment again you said Dirk H.A Kolff only talk in 6 lines I have mentioned 5 to 6 pages where Dirk Kolf clearly mentioned about Dargahi Singh Bhati and Bhati Gujjar clan and Rulers of Dadri as Bhati same things also have done by all other historians.
• 6th Go and read citation research again Not any author of these books Used Rana Ali Hassan chauhan's work as first sources or they don't even talk or mentioned the name of Rana Ali Hassan chauhan.
• 7th thing is that it is not necessary to put In Dadri's town article about Dadri estate of Bhati Gujjar and by saying that you also point out that these two pages Dargahi Singh or Shambu Singh should redirect to Dargahi's town article at what bases brother?. You said because these two characters don't have Coverage in dirk Kolf or other's work you're wrong I have mentioned 6 pages from Dirk H.A Kolff's Book he talked about Dargahi Singh Bhati also Shambu Singh bhati Even he talked about Rao Roshan Singh Bhati but the link that I have provided is a paid work of Dirk H.A Kolff we can not entirely get access to his work without paying.
•8th Dadri's was an independent state established by Dargahi Singh Bhati, Ruled by Rao Roshan Singh Bhati, Umrao Singh Bhati, shambujit Singh Bhati, Amra Singh Bhati they all belonged to one monarchy and one family of Bhati Gujjar clan. Refrences given in the article will decided such characters have more or less coverage. Brother Your lame excuses like Dargahi Singh or Ajit Singh Bhati never signed a treaty with britishers etc and They paid tribute to Britishers such excuses are irrelevant here and Dadri was a princely state or just a estate also doesn't matter here. Totally irrelevant to the topic of Deletions discussion.
•9th thing you should have to accept the fact that your claims like Dadri's rulers never mentioned as bhatti have already cleared, Britishers never Singh a treaty, these pages dependent on Javaid Rahi or Rana Ali Hassan chauhan's work also proven wrong, shambu singh Bhati and Dargahi Singh Bhati don't have Coverage also proven wrong by the given refrences and RAJ Era sources triggered you so I have removed all. Brother I am leaving best wishes and love for you and also mentioning the articles of Umrao Singh Bhati, Dargahi Singh Bhati, Shambhujit Singh Bhati, and Ajit Singh Bhati these 4 Rulers belonged to one monarchy one Gujjar family of Bhati clan. Amra Singh Bhati, Roshan Singh Bhati and some other Rulers from this monarchy have not yet any articles. Have nice day 😊 brother before claims must bring solid proofs!. @Liz@StellarHalo@Scottywong أسامة بن عبد الله وليد (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
see Ajit Singh Bhati's ref no. 4 and 6; Shambhujit Singh Bhati's ref no. 4 and 7; and Dargahi Singh Bhati's ref no. 4. All of them cite page no. 589 and/or page no. 590, which are authored by Rana Ali Hassan Chauhan. You're absolutely wrong here. If Javaid Rahi in his book or any other writer doesn't even talk about Rana Ali Hassan Chauhan's work/book or doesn't even mention at the bottom line of the page that these references they take from the work\Book of Rana Ali Hassan Chauhan, then on what basis are you wasting your time, Brother? Please don't reply, brother, if you don't have any solid proof that any writer mentioned that they're talking on behalf of Rana Ali Hassan Chauhan's work. Simply use Coman Sense. أسامة بن عبد الله وليد (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No need to ping me. This is just one of hundreds of AFDs that are open right now. What we really need is to hear from other editors. You've said your peace, let others weigh in. This is a process of consensus building, not which editor can be the most persistent. Liz Read! Talk! 07:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's have a relist not overwhelmed by walls of text from a sockpuppet
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see any consensus here. But, speaking as an uninvolved bystander, perhaps a move to Draft space would alleviate some concerns about sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:08, 15 July 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ajit_Singh_Bhati&oldid=1166158163"