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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Murad Jah (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)

I proposed this article for deletion with the reason "The only article about Murad Jah says nothing about his princely role or his family. And in articles about the family, he is mentioned just once. He isn't notable, and hasn't received attention as the heir to a long-abolished state.". Since then, two articles about the succession were added as sources: [1] and [2]. Neither of them even mentions Murad Jah, making the case for deletion only stronger. Fram (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and India. Fram (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability isnt inherited. Irrelevant references and fails to meet WP:BIO. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 05:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per M.Ashraf333, subject isn’t notable.--Doctorlimp (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC) (sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It seems to fail WP:NPEOPLE due to lack of significant coverage about the subject themselves, rather than passing mentions. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:03, 2 February 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.