List of Rajput Sportspersons: Almost all name listed here are mentioned there in a seperate heading called "Sports". Hence it's undue to keep a seperate article for it. - Admantine123 ( talk ) 06:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Hinduism ,  and India .  Admantine123 ( talk ) 06:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Obvious WP:CFORK of List of Rajputs#Sports .  Ajf773 ( talk ) 09:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  〜 Festucalex • talk 10:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi, the original page List of Rajputs is already overloaded and no new names are being added despite repeated requests.  Therefore, it is better if it is section-wise moved to a separate page for easier addition of names and better presentation (more details and images).  I propose that the names under Sports section can be removed from that page and a redirect to List of Rajput Sportspersons be added.  In future, similar things can be done for other sections as and when required.  Kshatriya Yoddha ( talk ) 10:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Another point is that few people are mentioned in just one category, although they have significant contributions in other as well which makes it difficult to get all relevant names at a place.  Example, Ranjitsinhji is mentioned in Sports section but his name should also have been in Indian Royalty section as well due to his immense contributions as a Maharaja of Nawanagar state.  Another example is Paan Singh Tomar who should be mentioned in 2 sections, Sports and Criminals.  Also addition of new names like Roop Singh , brother of Dhyan Chand .  The biggest concern is the no response to previous recommendations of new name additions.  Kshatriya Yoddha ( talk ) 10:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Another new addition of Ashok Kumar , a famous hockey world cup winning player and son of Dhyan Chand .  Kshatriya Yoddha ( talk ) 10:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete this isn’t very long.  No need for a length split.  Dronebogus ( talk ) 13:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi, the primary purpose to shift the page is to make it longer with new additions which are not happening on the original page.  This might not be much long right now but atleast new names are being added here, 3 have already been added, 10-12 are in queue, just confirming the citations.  If you don't allow for a length split right now because the length doesn't seems long, the very purpose is defeated which is to make it more exhaustive , detailed (proper explanation & images) and arranged properly (in alphabetical order) for easier navigation; all of which is not possible in the older list.  Kshatriya Yoddha ( talk ) 14:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Original article is currently locked due to persistent inappropriate additions made without reliable sources regarding the Rajput status.  As a result, you may not have the ability to edit it.  However, you can place your editing request on the article's talk page, and a reviewer will assess your request and incorporate the necessary changes on your behalf.  AmusingWeasel ( talk ) 13:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete It appears that this list is primarily a copy-and-paste of an existing article, with only a few new names added.  Instead of creating a separate article, it would be more appropriate to edit the existing one to include these additional names.  Without significant content changes and substantial additions, the creation of a standalone article does not seem justified.  AmusingWeasel ( talk ) 12:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair enough, but then kindly lower the editing status of List of Rajputs page as no new additions are being done in it inspite of repeated messages on talk page.  Kshatriya Yoddha ( talk ) 17:39, 24 June 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.

Discussion outcome: delete