Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhikhari Thakur

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 keep. KTC (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bhikhari Thakur

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable. No independent sources cited. Puffery and promotional language. Lots of original research. --L235 (talk) Ping when replying 06:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep There are multiple sources out there in English, never mind Devanagari. Sure, the article needs clean up but that is no reason to delete it. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entire article is OR, not written to standards, and subject is wholly non-notable on en.wp. On the bright side, all the non-English external links are 404s!--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure on what you base your assertion that Thakur is non-notable when he is covered in multiple independent reliable sources. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So put them in! (Even with refs I'd have a hard time liking the article in its present form. What a mess.)--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 08:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Subject meets WP:GNG, WP:BIO standard for having significant coverage in 'multiple' secondary, independent and reliable sources (Hindi sources, English sources). One requires to use these sources to improve the article, though. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:BIO for sure. Noteswork (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2015 (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.